Sitting of 22 May 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/WALLASEY) BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BLACKPOOL AND STOURBRIDGE) BILL
Read a Second time and committed.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL
Read a Second time and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Education, Lanarkshire (Block Grant)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the block grant for education, with a view to giving an increase in grant to Lanarkshire because of its new town commitments; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Brace Millan): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave him on 16th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 279–280.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Would my hon. Friend not agree that Lanarkshire has a heavy responsibility for the new town of East Kilbride, where most of the money has to be spent, because of the young popula-
    502
    tion? Is he aware that there are other parts of Lanarkshire, in my constituency —Baillieston, Bothwell, Carmyle, Garrowhill and Bellshill—all requiring schools too? Should not serious thought be given to reviewing the situation?
    Mr. Millan: If my hon. Friend is referring to rate support grant, he will know that this is being reviewed by a working party of officials, including representatives of local authorities, of which Lanarkshire is one. If he is talking about the school building programme, the special needs of East Kilbride, as I have made clear to the authority, are already taken into account.

    Alcohol and Crime
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the appointment of a committee to inquire into the relationship of the consumption of alcohol as a contributory cause of the increase in violent crime.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): Alcohol is a contributory factor in the commission of crimes, including crimes of violence. But my right hon. Friend does not think that it would be useful to set up a committee for the purpose of trying to establish more closely the nature and extent of this link.
    Mr. Hannan: In view of the mounting evidence from the courts, the recent remarks of Lord Stott, the evidence that one sees in hospitals and the increase in teenage drinking, is there not sufficient reason to justify my request?
    Mr. Buchan: I do not think that there is sufficient reason here to justify this particular request for a committee. There is certainly a case for research on this as one of the many complex factors in this situation.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Minister aware, following his Answer, that a Committee would seem to be something of an irrelevance? Does he appreciate that what the public in Scotland require is action to deal with this problem?
    Mr. Buchan: It depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "action". Thought is being given to this. There are changes of attitudes towards this

    503
    question in some of our industrial cities, and we have debated this at some length in Scottish Grand Committee.
    Mr. Hannan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the cost to public funds of criminal legal aid for each of the past three years at any convenient date.
    Mr. Buchan: Criminal legal aid, which was introduced on a statutory basis in October 1964, cost £42,000 in the financial year 1964–65, £242,000 in 1965–66 and £396,000 in 1966–67.
    Mr. Hannan: In the light of these figures, will my hon. Friend set up an inquiry to find out whether these increasing sums are always justified, and whether the steps taken to recover such moneys from applicants are sufficiently vigorous to comply with the Act?
    Mr. Buchan: I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend is examining, in consultation with the Law Society of Scotland, possible ways of containing the growth of expenditure.
    Mrs. Ewing: As the criminal legal aid scheme, which replaced the voluntary scheme under which the legal profession gave its services voluntarily under an Act of 1424, provides a smaller umbrella than the voluntary scheme, would the Minister agree that the need is to increase the coverage of the legal aid scheme to restore it to its previous extent? May I also suggest—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
    Mrs. Ewing: Would the Minister agree that it would be worth while looking at the possibility of imposing costs by scale according to the income of the applicant, as is done in the civil scheme?
    Mr. Buchan: I said that we were examining the whole system. I do not share the hon. Lady's opinion of the success of the voluntary scheme. There is a better case for the statutory scheme now operating. We must avoid abuses.
    Mr. Wylie: Will the Minister endorse the views of his learned friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland that this scheme, and I quote:
    "… does play a useful and socially necessary rôle in our system—"
    Mr. Speaker: No quotations in supplementary questions.
    Mr. Wylie: Will he assure us that there is no question of reducing the scope of the legal aid scheme, which has performed such a useful social rôle?
    Mr. Buchan: I have emphasised that we must maintain this socially useful rôle of the scheme in order to protect the rights of the accused and especially the innocent. Clearly, however, there is room for thought and investigation into the cost, which is mounting up.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give consideration to introducing legislation to prohibit the granting of legal aid to individuals appearing in court on charges of assault involving offensive weapons on the person who have had previous conviction for similar offences; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: The present statutory scheme enables persons of inadequate means to exercise their right to have what can be said in their favour brought before the court. Any proposal for modifying the scheme which might have the effect of denying legal representation to persons accused of serious offences is open to objection on grounds of principle. My right hon. Friend has no plans for legislation on these lines. However, he is concerned at the rising cost of criminal legal aid and he is at present considering, in consultation with the Law Society of Scotland, possible ways of containing the growth of expenditure on the scheme.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Airdrie sheriff's court recently three persons charged with assault on individuals involving the use of dangerous weapons, some of whom had previous convictions, were defended by three advocates and three solicitors at the expense of the Legal Aid Fund? Does he not think that this is an abuse of the system? Is it not time that he looked at this?
    Mr. Buchan: It is precisely because I am concerned about certain aspects of the situation that I have said that we are investigating it.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: While appreciating the need for proper legal representation for all, would the hon. Gentleman ensure that the funds available to local authorities concerned in the battle against crime will grow at least as fast as the amount available for the Legal Aid Fund?
    Mr. Buchan: As the hon. Member will know from the figures I gave a week or two ago, as compared with the previous Administration we are considerably increasing expenditure.
    Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern over what appears to be the increasingly extravagant use of counsel, both in criminal and civil proceedings? Ought he not to look at this very seriously?
    Mr. Buchan: The question of day-today administration of the scheme rests with the Law Society and, as I have said, we are investigating this and other matters with it.

    Crime (Glasgow)
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the outbreak of violence in Glasgow over Easter weekend, what action he intends taking to strengthen the forces of law and order.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the proposals he has framed to meet the crime wave in Glasgow in view of its continuing increase.
    Mr. Buchan: This is a problem which is under continuous review. My right hon. Friend and I have already described on various occasions the steps the Government have been taking to encourage and support those dealing with it. Furthermore the subject was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee on 9th May.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is good enough to keep on saying that this matter is under continual review when everyone, the Church, the magistrates and ordinary people are
    506
    asking for stronger measures? It cannot be right to refuse the police greater powers of search. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the Tiber but the Clyde in Glasgow which is foaming with blood? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Buchan: There are two Questions on the Order Paper about this. As to taking action, one of the means open to me is to encourage the police in every possible way by putting the right kind of facilities at their disposal—by spending money. If one looks at 1962–63, under the previous Administration we were spending only £2 5s. 6d. per head of the population. This year we are spending £4 6s. l0d. per head of the population —nearly double that spent by the previous Administration.
    Mr. Rankin: While we are debating this problem in the House and in its Committee Rooms, is my hon. Friend aware that every weekend in Glasgow and district there are fights between gangs with hatchets, razors, hammers and other lethal weapons? If he is in favour of disarmament among nations, why does he not start by disarming these gangs?
    Mr. Buchan: As I thought I had made clear, responsibility for law and order in Glasgow rests with the police and the magistrates—
    Mr. Rankin: And this House surely?
    Mr. Buchan: This House can advise and bring forward ideas and help in that way. This kind of sensationalised picture detracts from the real task, which is to make clear to every thug in Glasgow that very real and effective powers of immediate arrest exist. It is only aiding and abetting the thug to suggest that they do not.
    Mr. Noble: Why, if the hon. Gentleman's aim is to encourage the police, does he continue to prevaricate on the one thing that the police and magistrates have all asked for?
    Mr. Buchan: This will be dealt with in a later Question, as the right hon. Gentleman should know.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the Minister given any thought to my proposal that the 500 policemen needed in Glasgow could be recruited from B.A.O.R.? Is it not better for them to be fighting the

    507
    real enemy here than some mythical enemy in Germany?
    Mr. Buchan: We are interested in all sources of recruitment.
    Mr. Galbraith: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Rents
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in the light of the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on rents of local authority houses, what steps he intends taking to encourage local authorities to raise rents to a reasonable level and so reduce the burden on the rates.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. Dickson Mabon): My right hon. Friend has always encouraged local authorities to fix rents at a reasonable level. The principles for determining rents proposed in the Board's report will be discussed with the local authority associations.
    Mr. Galbraith: How much longer will the hon. Gentleman continue with this double-talk? Is he in favour of higher rents or not? Why cannot he come out fearlessly, as the Church has done, in favour of rents which charge people what they can afford? Is he aware that the present system of indiscriminate subsidy is grossly unfair to the community, and prevents wealthier people from providing houses for themselves? Will he do something about it and not just talk?
    Dr. Mabon: Assuming that the hon. Gentleman is not being hypocritical and reviewing his own record, we can only conclude that his Government colleagues at the time prevented him from doing what he is now preaching to us. I can only say that the report has been received quite recently. There are five important principles in it which have to be discussed by the local authority associations. We must give these associations respect —the hon. Gentleman used to have respect for them—and we must allow these discussions to continue.
    Dr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware that while there is no objection to increasing rents up to a reasonable level, the
    508
    object is not to decrease the burden on the rates but rather that the money should be used for other social services which are absolutely necessary in the cities?
    Dr. Mabon: I agree. It would repay every hon. Member to re-read the N.B.P.I. report, particularly the five principles I have mentioned.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Secretary of State fully compensate by grant the ratepayers of any local authority who will have to pay increased rates because rent schemes have had to be altered?
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman ought to have accepted my admonition which I gave in general terms and now give to him personally. There are five important principles to be studied by the local authorities, individuals and by hon. Members. The answer is contained within a good study of these principles.

    Edinburgh (Tourist Facilities)
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with Edinburgh Corporation about tourist facilities in the city.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: None, Sir, but the Scottish Tourist Board has been discussing these matters with the Corporation.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the Minister realise that because it is the capital and because of its fame Edinburgh is the greatest tourist attraction in Scotland? Will he give an assurance that, as regards grants and loans, builders, hotel owners and other people in the city are to be treated exactly the same as those in any other part of Scotland?
    Dr. Mabon: I am certain that Edinburgh—the Lord Provost in particular— will welcome the announcement in the White Paper of the hotel incentives scheme which will apply to Edinburgh. He may remember that in the tourism debate I referred to the Edinburgh Accommodation Study which, to some extent, bears out what the hon. Gentleman said about his own city.
    Mr. Stodart: In view of the attractions of Edinburgh and the acute shortage of hotel accommodation there, will the hon. Gentleman at least repeat that in the new scheme Edinburgh will receive the same

    509
    grants for hotel building as those given in development areas?
    Dr. Mabon: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to do harm to his city by giving the impression that there is not ample accommodation, let us say for the Games, in Edinburgh. There is. According to the study which I have mentioned, Edinburgh accommodated something like 2 million bed nights in the year under review. We accept that in 1981 there will be 3 mi lion bed nights so required. [Laughter] This is the way it is measured. A good study of the White Paper would repay hon. Gentlemen.

    Edinburgh (Boundaries)
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Edinburgh Corporation concerning extension of the city's boundaries; and what reply he has sent.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: None, Sir.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will the Minister announce as a matter of policy that the Government are not in favour of extension of boundaries in Edinburgh and that if there is a great increase in population the answer lies in a new town, not in extending boundaries? Will the Scottish Office pay particular attention to open spaces in Edinburgh and draw attention particularly to Alnwickhill?
    Dr. Mabon: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the letter of intention of 9th May which the Secretary of State issued to the corporation following the public inquiry into the quinquennial review of the corporation's development plan. He will see that the Secretary of State commends the view that the regional approach towards housing accommodation in the city and in the surrounding counties is the right way to go about it.

    Offensive Weapons
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will reach a decision on the proposal to introduce legislation to provide the police with powers to search individuals for offensive weapons.
    Mr. MacArthnrasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has com-
    510
    pleted his consideration of the proposal that the police should have power of search where the possession of an offensive weapon is suspected; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: The present view of my right hon. Friend is that time should be allowed for the effects to be shown of the recent clarification of the existing law of arrest in relation to offensive weapons.
    Mr. Monro: Will the Minister take more definite action? Will he, for instance, consider bringing in early legislation of an experimental nature to see whether it will help in Glasgow?
    Mr. Buchan: I thought I had made my answer fairly clear. In terms of the present request, no.
    Mr. MacArthnr: The hon. Gentleman has been considering this question for some eight months. Will he accept that the police and the magistrates are in the front line of the fight against crime and are more aware of the problems and the needs than the hon. Gentleman can possibly be in his ivory tower? Will he take action at last to provide the police with the powers which they and the nation require?
    Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member has not been reading the Press as diligently as perhaps he should. I have been very much involved in the situation in Glasgow over the past few months. I have seen the kind of problems facing the police. But with the new clarification they have received, I am sure that their confidence of their right to arrest people in situations for which search has been demanded introduces a new and helpful factor.
    Mr. Dewar: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people in this House deplore the kind of sensationalised and extravagant campaign which has been running for re-vamped police powers, which many local authorities feel will be unhelpful and will complicate life for the police and bring Glasgow into unnecessary disrepute in the eyes of the world?
    Mr. Buchan: This is absolutely true. I think it would have been more helpful in the situation and more helpful now if more constant reference was made to the

    511
    real powers which do exist instead of aiding and abetting the thug by suggesting that no real powers exist.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is the long delay more than the decision which has had such a serious effect on the morale of those fighting the battle against crime? Why cannot he come to a speedy decision?
    Mr. Buchan: I thought I had made my answer clear. I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman thinks it was the delay rather than the decision which was significant. I am pleased to know that he realises that at best the suggested powers were only marginal and possibly not helpful.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that some hon. Gentlemen opposite would not know a council housing scheme in Glasgow if they saw it; that it would be quite helpful to those of us who have some intimate knowledge of the problem if they would desist this kind of campaign; and that many of us are satisfied that the police have adequate powers at the moment?
    Mr. Buchan: I think the answer is, yes, to all three questions.
    Mr. Monro: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider introducing legislation to increase the maximum penalty for carrying an offensive weapon on summary conviction under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953, from three months in prison to six months.
    Mr. Buchan: I am not aware that the normal limit of three months in the powers of imprisonment of the sheriff summary court creates difficulties in disposing of offenders convicted of this offence.
    Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a body of reasonable opinion alarmed by the rise in the crime rate and the prevalence of this kind of offence who feel that a little more flexibility in sentencing policy would be an advantage and of help to the Bench in dealing with this kind of incident?
    Mr. Buchan: Yes. But the sheriff's summary court can already impose borstal and detention sentences, so there is flexibility in length of time in that connection, and two years not three months, is the maximum sentence on indictment. So there is an element of flexibility on both counts which is adequate to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Wylie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the remedy is largely in the hands of the Lord Advocate? If he chose to take more cases on indictment, there would be no problem of three months, as he has pointed out.
    Mr. Buchan: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to say that this is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and no doubt he will be noting the views expressed here this afternoon.

    Aluminium Smelter
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the siting of an aluminium smelter in Scotland.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now announce his decision on the siting of an aluminium smelter in Scotland.
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to announce the siting of an aluminium smelter in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I cannot yet add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, during the debate on the Adjournment on 16th May.
    Mr. Monro: Since the Prime Minister's optimistic statement last September, there seems to have been nothing but disappointment and uncertainty for Inver-gordon. Can the Secretary of State say how the negotiations are going with E.F.T.A. and when he hopes to be able to make a definite statement?
    Mr. Ross: I do not think there is disappointment. There may well have been uncertainty. What the hon. Gentleman and others fail to appreciate is the

    513
    magnitude of the projects, the complexity of the negotiations, and the number of people involved. I can only reiterate that a statement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not beyond the wit of man to erect an aluminium smelter at Invergordon or anywhere else quite quickly, provided the decision and the will do so is there? Does the statement by the Prime Minister on 9th May that he has been in day-to-day touch with the problem perhaps give some indication why this terrible delay has taken place?
    Mr. Ross: It is fairly obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not even gone into the problems. He has not considered the recent negotiations and the concern of people internationally concerning this matter, concern which we hope to get over.
    Mr. Adam Hunter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Scotland still feel that the projected Aloan smelter should go to Invergordon in the hope that the mining industry might derive some benefit?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should know that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, in the debate which I mentioned, said that Alcan had agreed to the Government's request to consider the suitability of alternative sites in North-East England. The reason for that is so that they would be adjacent to the coal they were to use.
    Mr. Noble: Though we all appreciate the difficult international negotiations that are going on, we also realise the particular uncertainty that is felt in the Dingwell area. Could not the Government announce that one smelter at least will go to that area?
    Mr. Ross: It is much tidier to wait —I hope not that much longer—and get the announcement about the whole position. I, too, suffer from the measure of uncertainty, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no need to express disappointment at this stage.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if this project had been formulated in the years between
    514
    1951 and 1964 it might have been in production now? Can my right hon. Friend say what the time lag will be between the completion of the negotiations with our EFTA partners and the announcement of a decision in this House?
    Mr. Ross: I hope very little indeed. My hon. Friend should appreciate that the negotiations are very complex. It is not just a matter of the international aspects, but aspects relating to the provision of finance, services, power and all the rest. A considerable effort will be made to cut to the absolute minimum any delays which will be involved.
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grave concern is felt at Invergordon at the delay in making an announcement? Is he further aware that many people who have been unemployed for the past year have remained at Invergordon in the hope that the smelter would be coming along? For their sake, will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to expedite a decision, if possible before the Whitsun Recess?
    Mr. Ross: I can understand and appreciate the feelings in Invergordon. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this Government have created the hope. It is this Government's direct initiative which has created the opportunity. The hon. Gentleman can smile. I hope that before we are finished the people who have reason to be happy and smile will be the people of Invergordon.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when building of the aluminium smelter will begin; when it will be completed; and how many it will employ when fully operational.
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend must await the announcement of the Government's decisions on new smelting capacity, on which these matters naturally depend.
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, that is just what I meant.

    Rents
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how he proposes to apply the ceiling on increases in local authority housing rents in Scotland; and whether he will fix a limit below 7s. 6d.,

    515
    in view of the fact that such an increase would represent a much higher proportional rise in Scotland than in England.
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what special action he proposes to take on local authority rents; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government announced on 25th April that we will not normally accept increases in average standard rents exceeding 7s. 6d. a week in any one year, which was the upper limit recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. This does not mean, of course, that rent increases of this order will be generally acceptable, and my right hon. Friend told local authorities that they will be expected to restrict increases to what is needed to meet increased costs or to bring down unduly high rate fund contributions.
    Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend will, of course, bear in mind that there is a different rent structure in Scotland from that in England and a different wages structure in many industries. Would he, therefore, bear in mind that a 7s. 6d. increase would be a very high proportional rise in many parts of Scotland, and possibly an unjust one? Would he remember that it is, indeed, a maximum of 7s. 6d.?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir, I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. However, although the proportional increase could be very substantial, it is the actual increase which counts for the tenant, and this is one of the many factors which we must weigh together. That is why the discussions which we are to have with the local authority associations are so important.
    Mr. Hunter: Would my hon. Friend not agree that there are many council tenants in Scotland living in areas of high unemployment and low wage rates who would find it difficult to pay weekly rent increases of 7s. 6d.?
    Dr. Mabon: I accept that, and we must bear in mind all the factors surrounding each case.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: But would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is very
    516
    striking that four out of five of the burghs with the lowest contribution from rents to historic cost examined by the Prices and Incomes Board are in Scotland? Does this not suggest that the need is for a speedier move towards recovery of historic costs and not a slower move?
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. Four of the local authorities referred are in Scotland—[Interruption.]—with respect, he said that there were four out of five of those referred. In fact, the Minister of Housing referred considerably—[Interruption.] Well, I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, or he did not say it properly. In fact, the increases proposed by four local authorities, including one in his own constituency, are the subject of discussions, and we will take the appropriate action on these.

    Brown Trout Fishing
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposals for organising brown trout fishing in the report of the Hunter Committee.
    Mr. Buchan: I should prefer not to comment on individual recommendations until my right hon. Friend has completed his consideration of the Report as a whole.
    Mr. Campbell: Although some of the decisions of the Hunter Committee on salmon will require time for the careful consideration necessary, why cannot the Government start action on the trout recommendations, as urged from this side in the debate last summer, since this would be of great help to the Scottish tourist industry?
    Mr. Buchan: I am interested to know that hon. Members opposite differentiate between salmon and trout, but the Report should be seen as a whole—
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: They are different fish.
    Mr. Buchan: I recognise that they are different fish and that there are different attitudes to these different fish from certain people. Our view is that the Report should be considered as a whole, with all its implications.

    Halliday Report
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Halliday Report.
    Mr. Ross: For the present I have nothing to add to the reply I gave in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) on 10th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 1343–4.]
    Mr. Campbell: Why cannot the Government yet proceed, on the basis of this useful Report, with changing and modernising the feu system and conveyancing?
    Mr. Ross: The way the hon. Gentleman puts it one would think that this was a modest and slight change, when in fact it would change the whole land tenure structure of Scotland and is completely revolutionary. We have discussed this with all the authorities in Scotland, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have received varied reactions. This must be the subject of further discussion and consideration and, as early as possible—I hope before the end of this Session—I shall make a further statement.
    Mrs. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general public in Scotland resent the heavy cost of conveyancing fees, which are partly due to the intensely complicated method? Does he agree that the public realise that it is full of mumbo-jumbo and that this brings the law into disrepute? Would he press for legislation to simplify the law on conveyancing?
    Mr. Ross: Yes, this is one aspect, and only one, of the Halliday Report. I assure the hon. Lady that, as far as I know, Scots object to all kinds of legal fees. I am glad to be able to enrol her into the anti-lawyer lobby, although I suspected earlier that that would not be worth while. We are considering conveyancing to see whether there are certain aspects which might be separated from the main issue, and whether we could promote a separate Bill for those.
    Mr. Dewar: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although the question of feu duties is a complicated one, many proposals in the Report are much more simple and could be intro-
    518
    duced much more quickly and would simplify the conveyancing procedures and spare my colleagues in the legal profession the embarrassment of charging high conveyancing fees?
    Mr. Ross: I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend. He will note what I have said—that I am still considering the possibility of separate legislation on this aspect.
    Mr. Wylie: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this useful Report will not be coloured by his well-known antipathy towards the legal profession.
    Mr. Ross: I have been very kindly to the legal profession. Everyone here has. All the supplementary questions so far have come from the legal profession. It is time that we heard the layman.
    Mr. James Davidson: Speaking as a layman, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a debate not only on the Halliday Report but on the whole feudal system is long overdue, that a majority of legal opinion would maintain that the whole system of feu duties and the feudal system could be easily dealt with by separate legislation, and that those parts of the profession who do not agree with this are those who consider simplification to be a vice?
    Mr. Ross: Everyone wants reform, but they cannot seem to agree on its nature and how the financial problems which arise will be dealt with. Everyone wants feu duties abolished, but the consequence is the question of who would undertake the financial burden which is inevitably involved.

    Royal Commission on Local Government
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government.
    Mr. Ross: I hope to have the Report by the end of this year.
    Mr. Taylor: Would it be the right hon. Gentleman's intention on receiving this Report, and in the light of the statesmanlike and forward-looking speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at Perth, to consider how these recommendations can be allied

    519
    to the devolution of real responsibility to a Scottish elected assembly?
    Mr. Ross: I do not make decisions on recommendations until I have seen the recommendations. When I have, I shall discuss, in Scotland, with Scottish people and Scottish local authorities and the other interests affected just where we can move from there.

    Passenger Transport Authorities
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish passenger transport authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: I intend to consult the local authorities and other interests concerned before deciding whether to establish any passenger transport authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Taylor: Precisely what was the reason for the new measures which the right hon. Gentleman is bringing in next week to enable local authorities to give grants to railway lines? Will he guarantee that he will not hold a pistol to the heads of local authorities and force the railway deficit on the rates?
    Mr. Ross: I have never been a Secretary of State who held pistols to the heads of local authorities, despite invitations to do so from hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member knows the position. It has been considered fully in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill and will no doubt be considered further. We have just received the report of the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study and we are still awaiting the East Central Scotland Study. Until we get it, we would be unwise to make up our minds about P.T.A.s in Scotland.

    Tain Royal Academy
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the present rate of progress with the building of the new Tain Royal Academy is sufficient to enable the Academy to be opened on the target date in 1969; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: I understand that Ross and Cromarty Education Authority is satisfied with the rate of progress and
    520
    sees no reason to change its forecast of the completion date.
    Mr. Mackenzie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will give much satisfaction to my constituents in Tain? Will he accept the appreciation of my constituents and myself for the efforts of the local authority and the contractors concerned?
    Mr. Millan

    Forestry Commission (Land)
    Mrs. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Forestry Commission has not acquired any land under compulsory powers; and if he will make a statement on the difficulties the Commission has in obtaining land from landowners unwilling to sell it, including land at present put to no use.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: In general, the Forestry Commission has had no special difficulty in acquiring enough suitable land in Scotland by agreement; and accordingly, the need to use compulsory powers has not so far arisen.
    Mrs. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that the potential of the Forestry Commission in Scotland to expand is immense and that, while many landowners are selling their land, many others are driving a hard bargain by selling job lots of unsuitable land with suitable land which the Forestry Commission must accept on a take-it-or-leave-it basis? Is he aware that the present state of affairs will remain unsatisfactory as long as great tracts of land in Scotland remain in the hands of a few people who are not putting it to any use? Is he also aware that no other country in the world allows this situation to prevail?
    Dr. Mabon: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady's final words and I am not certain that I fully understand the point she is making. If she will give me specific instances I will look into them. About 200,000 plantable acres are already at the disposal of the Forestry Commission. In the last year for which we have figures we purchased 50,000 plantable acres. We are, therefore, doing very well and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last October was welcome to Scotsmen everywhere in that we are going to raise the position in Scotland to an all-time record.
    Mr. Willis: Have the difficulties that exist in connection with obtaining land in the North-East been overcome?
    Dr. Mabon: Not completely. I readily accept that our reserves in the North-East are low. That is the one area where that situation prevails. This is a difficult problem, but we are still pursuing the matter.

    The Borders (Johnston Marshall Plan)
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made to the cost to the Exchequer of implementing the Johnston Marshall Plan for the Borders.
    Mr. Ross: I cannot yet estimate how much of the necessary investment will be in the public sector.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Will the right hon. Gentlem;m assure the House that before he commits the taxpayer to vast sums of expenditure he will first of all consider the future of the Borders in terms of a balanced population with a balance in age groups rather than in terms of large numbers simply for the sake of large numbers?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that the Government are so blind as to race into this without thinking of this very obvious problem. We appreciate the difficulty. A Conservative Government produced a demographic report about the Borders and that showed clearly how unbalanced things are, particularly in connection with age groups. Any move of population into the area will be designed to correct that rather than to aggravate it.
    Mr. David Steel: Of particular interest to my constituents is whether the Government are making any firm commitments in connection with the various projects in the Plan. Is he aware that we are especially interested to know if a starting date for the new hospital has been agreed and, more immediately, if a firm starting date has been fixed for a new bridge over the Tweed at Gala-foot?
    Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman will table specific Questions on those matters I will answer them.

    Arable Land (Housing Developments)
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the loss of arable land for farming due to housing developments in Scotland over the next 10 years.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) on 25th January, 1967.— [Vol. 739, c. 294.]
    Earl of Dalkeith: Would the Minister agree that as the world becomes increasingly short of food arable land will become increasingly important to this country? Will he therefore consider a scheme of incentives for local authorities to persuade them to do more of their building on land which is of less good agricultural value?
    Dr. Mabon: It is the policy of the Department and has been our policy for some time that where all things are equal we choose to build on poorer rather than better land. However, as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) was informed, about 5,000 acres of agricultural land of all qualities is being taken out of agricultural production for development. That is the present rate. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurance beyond saying that we will keep looking at the trends to ensure that the policies being followed are correct.
    Mr. Small: Taking into account the figures projected over the next 10 years and considering this problem in terms of land use—a non-transferable asset for children yet unborn; this is non-inheritable land, as it were—would my hon. Friend agree that we must be particularly careful in this matter?
    Dr. Mabon: I will examine my hon. Friend's remarks closely.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people in the City of Edinburgh deplore the decision of his right hon. Friend to take out of production about 120 acres of very fine arable land at a famous farm called "East Craigs"?
    Dr. Mabon: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He must realise

    523
    that many painful decisions must be taken by Secretaries of State from time to time to cope with the problem of housing our people. He will, of course, accept that this, too, is a primary matter of social concern.

    British Standard Time
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received to date in favour of the introduction of British Standard Time; and how many against.
    Mr. Ross: Since the Government's decision was announced on 22nd June, 1967, I have received no representations in favour and about 114 representations against. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have reconsidered this matter in view of the many representations received and have tabled an Amendment to the Bill to provide for an experimental period of three years.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer, is it not clear that everyone in Scotland is totally against the introduction of British Standard Time, so why not drop the idea altogether?
    Mr. Ross: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is being somewhat sweeping when he refers to everyone in Scotland being totally opposed to the introduction of B.S.T. He usually tells me to consult everyone in Scotland. He may be interested to know that the Scottish Office of the Confederation of British Industries the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) were among those I consulted at the start and that they were in favour of the introduction of B.S.T.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why not leave Scotland alone until the three-year experiment has been conducted in England?
    Mr. Ross: That would not be a practicable idea.
    Mr. Hughes: Why not?
    Mr. Ross: Many people in Scotland are in favour of this change.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this proposal will involve serious hardship to agriculture in Scotland and will probably intro-
    524
    duce some new perils for schoolchildren in rural districts? Is he aware that this places a totally intolerable new burden on Scottish life for a questionable commercial advantage?
    Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that once again he exaggerates the difficulties in this matter. We naturally took into consideration most seriously the effects that this change would have on agriculture. We always seriously consider these matters. We also considered its effect on schoolchildren. It will mean that schoolchildren will travel to school— that is, if present school hours remain the same—in darkness in parts of the country, but they will get the advantage at the other end of the day.
    Mr. Brewis: Is there any real reason why Scotland should not have different time from England?
    Mr. Ross: I think we have enough complications without that.

    Hotel Industry (Selective Employment Tax)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the division of Scotland into areas where certain hotels receive refund of the Selective Employment Tax and where others do not; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from outside bodies about the discrimination of the Selective Employment Tax on the hotels in the eastern part of the country; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Ross: I have received 30 representations, of which 16 were from bodies in the east of Scotland, including East Lothian, Fife, Kincardine and Roxburgh County Councils. In my replies I have said that the selection of areas listed in Schedule 17 of the Finance Bill broadly achieves the object for which the concession was designed and that there would be an opportunity for the matter to be discussed in detail at the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of us will be

    525
    unable to discuss this matter in Committee on the Finance Bill? Is it not clear, from the weight of representation that has been made-against this iniquitous and arbitrary distinction between areas of Scotland, that once again the Secretary of State is completely out of touch with the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: I have been very interested indeed in the desire of certain towns in Scotland to be designated as rural towns, particularly since hitherto many people have thought themselves to be veritable centres of metropolitan thought in Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter which will be further discussed on the Finance Bill; and that is the time for the subject to be debated.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is far too ready to practise discrimination, that discrimination against hotels in my constituency and in other parts of the country is totally unjust and that these hotels need the same chance as every other hotel in the country to contribute to the growing tourist industry?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman raises two questions; first, that of tourist development and the need for incentives to aid tourism and, secondly, that of regional development and the need for help in particular areas. I remind him that his hon. Friends are constantly asking me to discriminate—for example, in favour of the Highland areas—and I suggest that we have gone a good deal beyond what has been sought in an endeavour to be of help. I sometimes wonder if we should have done it at all.
    Mr. Steele: As the proposal is obviously designed to help hotels which are busy only seasonally, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that to set a line of this kind is bound to cause anomalies because of a certain amendment of rigidity caused by that line? Will he bear this in mind and perhaps formulate a system whereby hotels which are busy for only parts of the year and which at present fall on the wrong side of the line can be considered?
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will appreciate that: no matter where the line is drawn there will be anomalies. No matter how one discriminates, anomalies will occur between those who are within a
    526
    scheme and those who are just left out. Whether or not this whole matter is serious enough to merit an amendment of the proposal is a matter for consideration in further stages of the Bill.
    Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is bitterly unfair on hotels competing in the same market as other hotels in these areas which have to face the same problems and markets and put up their prices? Will he reconsider this? Will he tell us who drew this line, he or the Minister of Labour in London?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Member knows well that the decision was a Government decision and that is how it is properly to be expressed. As to competing in the same market, that is not always true— [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course it is."] —no, it is not always true. For instance, in Girvan and in Ayr there is very considerable difference.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Do not the words used by the Secretary of State, saying that wherever the line is drawn anomalies would be created, confirm again that there is only one thing to be done with this tax and that is to abolish it?
    Mr. Ross: If that were done it would have to be replaced by another tax and there would be a bigger outcry than ever.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Storm Damage (Insurance)
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he now has as to the number of housing authorities in Scotland who insure their properties against storm damage.
    Mr. Ross: I now have information from 116 authorities. Four counties, two large burghs and 40 small burghs insure against storm damage. The four cities, 14 counties, 18 large burghs and 34 small burghs do not.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the rate payers of those prudent local authorities which have insured will benefit from the prudence which their leaders have shown?
    Mr. Ross: I think that follows without saying.

    Prescription Charges
    Sir 3. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people he now estimates will be eligible for exemption from prescription charges.
    Mr. Millan: The number of exempt patients in Scotland is expected to be just under 2½ million.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Can the Under-Secre-tary say whether he has concluded satisfactory arrangements with the pharmaceutical trade in Scotland about the method of repayment?
    Mr. Millan: That is something which will be debatable on the regulations. Other discussions with the chemists are going on and the scheme will come into operation on 10th June.
    Mr. Manuel: In regard to the large number of exclusions, will the actual cost of recovery and working out the exclusions make the scheme worth while?
    Mr. Millan: Certainly it will be worth while in finding a saving.
    Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that I heard him aright in suggesting that 50 per cent. of the people in Scotland will be exempt?
    Mr. Millan: Yes, that is what I said.

    Crimes of Violence
    Mr. Wrightasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he will not recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the causes of violence in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend does not think that the appointment of a Royal Commission would make a worthwhile contribution to tackling this problem.
    Mr. Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that violence in Scotland is now a matter of national concern? The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow has voiced it, and the Observer voiced it last week-end. Will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of the interest in this subject, apart from the
    528
    fact that Glasgow is a crime laboratory of the two universities, and reconsider the decision?
    Mr. Buchan: I think the hon. Member has benefited from the discussion we had privately last week. If he is concerned with research, he knows that we are paying a great deal of attention to that and certain helpful moves are going on in this direction. We are using research advice which has come from Glasgow and other areas.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there seems to be too much concentration on punishment after the trouble has come? Is he not aware that there is a great advantage if someone can find what is causing all this and see whether education, the Church or other bodies can help to eradicate the trouble before it starts?
    Mr. Buchan: I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend has said. This has been the main burden of the many discussions I have had over several months and of a number of suggestions I have put forward. I was interested to see that the senior magistrate in Glasgow is pursuing the same lines of research into understanding the causes and taking social measures to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Wylie: Would the hon. Gentleman agree in view of the terrible complexity of the matter that an inquiry by a Royal Commission, such as is suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright), may be a very appropriate way of investigating the underlying nature of the problem?
    Mr. Buchan: I do not think it would be. I am concerned with this as an urgent as well as a long-term problem and Royal Commissions have never been notorious for speed. The number and variety of people involved require a different solution, certainly not that of a Royal Commission.

    Glasgow Primary Schools (Entry Date)
    Mr. Wrightasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the talks between the Scottish Education Department and Glasgow Corporation over the proposal to institute

    529
    a single date of entry into Glasgow primary schools.
    Mr. Milan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 15th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 1220–1.]
    Mr. Wright: Does the Under-Secretary appreciate fully the anguish which this problem has caused a great many parents in Glasgow? Will he consider making the administration of infant and primary schools a great deal more flexible than it is in order to cope with this problem?
    Mr. Millan: I do not understand that question. If the hon. Member will look at the Answer I gave last week he will see that the Secretary of State has asked Glasgow Corporation to go back to two entry dates for primary schools.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the political opportunism of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) almost rivals that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)? Will he recognise that the very genuine concern by parents arises from the teacher shortage and part-time education which he inherited from hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Millan: I agree with both propositions.

    Scottish Tourist Board
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met officials of the Scottish Tourist Board.
    Mr. Ross: In June, 1967. My hon. Friend the Minister of State met the Board's Director, with one of its members, in February of this year.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the Secretary of State not take some trouble to meet the Tourist Board again to discuss with it the bogus S.E.T. concession, which means that the tourist industry in Scotland will be paying more after the so-called concession than before? Will he reconsider his views about the arbitrary line, which shows total ignorance of the problem facing the industry and that the tax should be abolished altogether?
    Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Member that if the tourist industry or
    530
    the Tourist Board have anything useful to say to me they will do so, as they have done in the past, but so far they have made no representations.

    Scottish Law Commission
    Mr. Wylieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consideration he has given in consultation with the Lord Advocate to the appointment of a second full-time member of the Scottish Law Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: The Lord Advocate and my right hon. Friend have decided to appoint a second full-time member of the Scottish Law Commission in place of one of the part-time members whose term of office expires on 16th June; and I am glad to announce that Mr. A. M. Johnston, Q.C., has accepted this appointment. Mr. Johnston will relinquish his present appointment as Sheriff of Dumfries and Galloway.
    Mr. Wylie: In thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate on making this change? This change will greatly strengthen the Law Commission and the choice of candidate is admirable.
    Mr. Buchan: I am sure my right hon. Friend will be delighted to receive the congratulations of the lawyers.

    Schools (Sub-standard Buildings)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools have seriously sub-standard buildings; and what would be the estimated cost of modernising or replacing them.
    Mr. Millan: Detailed information of this kind is not collected centrally. It is for the education authority, within its investment allocation, to select schools to improve or replace.
    Mr. Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman now concentrate more money on substandard primary schools since we are not to raise the school leaving age in the next two years?
    Mr. Millan: As the hon. Member knows, the allocations within the school building allocations have precisely that purpose.

    South-West Scotland
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to produce a plan for expansion of the South-West of Scotland, similar to that for the Central Borders.
    Mr. Ross: The South-West Economic Consultative Group has asked for a study to follow up the outline strategy in the White Paper on the Scottish Economy and I am considering how best this could be arranged.
    Mr. Brewis: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been considerable delay in getting something done for this area and that the population is dwindling away while he is dithering?
    Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Member that his Government did nothing about this for 13 years. We are the only people who have started to do something to get people interested in their future. This point will be considered by the Consultative Group at its next meeting. After that we shall have discussions to see how to follow the matter up.
    Mr. Galbraith: If the Secretary of State decides to produce such a plan, will he ensure that the publication is a great deal easier to understand than that produced for the South-East and also much cheaper so that people can afford to read it?
    Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I had nothing to do with the South-East one, but there will be no such complaint in respect of Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a matter of considerable urgency, as many mining jobs are likely to be lost in the near future? Will he press on with this urgently?
    Mr. Ross: Yes, I appreciate this. We lost many mining jobs in the last 10 years, but nothing was done about it.
    Mr. Galbraith: On a point of order. For the sake of accuracy, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the publication which I inadvertently described as being for the South-East was in fact for the Central Borders?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a point of accuracy, not of order.
    Mr. Brewis: On a point of order. I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

TRANSPORT BILL (AVAILABILITY)
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): In accordance with the undertaking which I gave to the House yesterday, I have made detailed inquiries into the point raised by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) about whether the Government made copies of the Transport Bill, as amended, available to some of their back benchers before the Bill was issued by the Public Bill Office on 18th May.
I am satisfied from my inquiries that this allegation is totally without foundation.
The Government, as usual, received a few proof copies of the Bill. The Minister sent one proof copy of the reprinted Bill, by hand, to the hon. Member for Worcester, and another to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) on Thursday, 16th May. These copies were sent to them as chief transport spokesmen for their parties in the House. No copy was given, or shown by the Ministry, to any other Member.
Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Leader of the House aware that the copy which was sent to me, and presumably to the spokesman for the Liberal Party, was marked "Strictly confidential", and that I was told that it could not be used, that it was not accurate, and that it must not be shown to any other person? That strict confidence was kept.
Therefore, will the Leader of the House tell us what explanation he received from those Labour back benchers who tabled Amendments on Friday, who obviously must have been in possession of a copy of the Bill, because, without being in possession of a copy of the Bill, it would have been impossible for them to make the references concerned?
Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked me this question.

533
Amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett) and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) certainly were discussed between my hon. Friend the Minister of State and them. In order to get the Amendments down quickly, with the right page and line references, my hon. Friends asked the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am being frank with the House. —my hon. Friends asked the Minister of State whether he would arrange for the Amendments to be tabled in their names. This was arranged—this is not unusual— through Parliamentary counsel. My hon. Friends were not shown copies of the Bill or told what was in the Bill.
Mr. Peter Walker: That is a most unsatisfactory reply. In the circumstances, the Leader of the House knows full well that there was considerable importance in being able to table Amendments early, as the Business Committee was meeting on Tuesday to discuss the timetable for the Bill. In view of this, Conservative back benchers who asked if they could table Amendments were told that they were unable to see any copy of the Bill to make the appropriate references. Therefore, in practice, this side of the House was unable to table Amendments on Friday, whereas the Government side was able to do so, in consultation with the Minister.
Mr. PeartI cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman made a specific charge yesterday. He said—and I quote from HANSARD—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not use words like that. I have made an impartial inquiry. The hon. Gentleman said yesterday:
"… it means that Ministers must have placed in the hands of their back benchers copies of a Bill that was not available to Members on this side of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 299.]
I have looked into this matter. No copies of the Bill were ever given to the hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that charge.
Mr. Peter Walker: On the assurance of the Leader of the House, I will certainly withdraw the charge that copies of the Bill were placed in the hands of back bench Members opposite. In its place, I say that the back benchers were given the facility of the Minister looking up the Bill for them and telling them how to frame their Amendments.
Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman, who had received a copy of the Bill from my hon. Friend, who, incidentally, had discussed matters with him in the Business Committee only a few hours previously, did not have the courtesy even to tell my right hon. Friend that he was raising this matter on the Floor of the House. I, as an older and more experienced Member, tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he goes on like this, he will bring disrepute not only on himself but on the normal conventions applying to relations between Ministers and those who lead for the Opposition.
Mr. Heath: What the Leader of the House has said is that no copy of the Bill was given to back benchers, but what the Government have done is to table Amendments for back benchers before the Bill was published. This is absolutely unsatisfactory to the rest of the House. The Leader of the House says that it is the customary practice. In my experience, it is certainly not the customary practice for the Government of the day to table Amendments in the names of back bench Members before the Bill has been published.
I ask the Leader of the House to abandon the various other red herrings which he has been drawing across the path and stick to this point, which is entirely unsatisfactory to the House.
Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should talk about red herrings. I was asked—indeed, I was pressed—by the hon. Member for Worcester to investigate whether my right hon. Friend had placed a copy of the Bill in the hands of, or made available the contents of the Bill to, our back benchers. That was the charge. My right hon. Friend did not do this. The only two Members who had the Bill were the hon. Members for Worcester and for Bodmin.
Mr. Heath: What the House is complaining about is that Government back benchers were given an advantage by the Government tabling Amendments for them—because this is what must have happened; indeed, the Leader of the House has said so—before anybody else had a copy of the Bill which they could use for this purpose. Will the Leader of

535
the House please say what justification there is for that practice?
Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made a charge. I have answered it. There is now another charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered the first charge. I believe that this is a normal courtesy whereby Members who have put a point of view in Committee seek advice and make representations. This applied to me when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when I was approached by Conservative back benchers. I have investigated this charge. It is unfounded. I ask hon. Members to be honourable and withdraw it.
Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I confirm his statement about the copy of the Bill that I received, that I treated it with confidence, and that I very much appreciate the courtesy of the Minister of Transport in sending it to me? Further, is it not a fact that the selection of Amendments for discussion will not be in any way affected by what has happened? As that is the real issue, it would be better to drop this matter.
Mr. Peart: I give the hon. Gentleman that complete assurance—[Interruption.] I have been asked, and I have said that it would be unaffected.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can move on.
Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that this practice will never occur again? It is entirely unacceptable that private Members' names should appear on Amendments printed at the same time as the Bill is published. Can the right hon. Gentleman name any occasion when Conservative private Members' names appeared at the same time as a Bill being published when he was at the Ministry of Agriculture?
Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. It would be a tragedy if the practice of having talks between our opposite numbers and an exchange of confidential information on the Bill in question is spoilt. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not
536
the point."] It is the point. I see nothing wrong with what my right hon. Friend has done in any way. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Worcester has made this charge without even having the courtesy to inform my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman keeps on repeating this, I should point out that I considered that the query was a technical one with the Public Bill Office. Therefore, I gave notice to Mr. Speaker, who, I thought, was the right person to give notice of this. Through the Minister's saying that my copy of the Bill had to be treated in strict confidence, I was unable to give any references in the Bill to my back benchers, while he was doing so to his.
Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Worcester made this charge:
"… it means that Ministers must have placed in the hands of their back benchers copies of a Bill that was not available to Members on this side of the House."
The hon. Gentleman had a copy of the Bill. He knows that this was not so.
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has already told the Leader of the House that if—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heath.
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has already said—
Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Must we go on suffering all the filth from the other side?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of emotion, not a point of order.
Mr. Lawson: Are innuendoes regularly to be thrown about by that crowd on the opposite side of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to his opinion, but it is not a point of order.
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has already told the Leader of the House that he fully accepts his assurance that the copies of the Bill were not given to Labour back benchers. He said this quite clearly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] That is a withdrawal. My hon. Friend has accepted the assurance of the Leader of the House. What I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman is

537
that hon. Members behind him were given the opportunity of putting down their Amendments, or their Amendments were put down by the Government. That is what happened. The Leader of the House would do better to acknowledge that fact straightly and honestly to the House and stop treating us in this shabby fashion.
Mr. Peart: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures. I know that his hon. Friend has now withdrawn, but I am sorry to say that I thought that his withdrawal was done rather ungraciously.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can move on.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Should not all members of the Standing Committee have been treated on a fair and equal basis? Was not an advantage given to Members who happen to be on the opposite side of the House? Has not the Minister a cheek to adopt his present attitude when he shamefully bulldozed the Bill through with a Guillotine?
Mr. Peart: If there was any advantage, it was to the spokesman for the Opposition with a Bill in his pocket.
Mr. Leadbitter: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that in the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends we are talking about Amendments put down by members of the Standing Committee? They sat on the Committee and they know the Bill as it is amended, and, therefore, it is quite proper—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW?"]— because we sat on the Committee. Will my right hon. Friend accept that we sat on that Bill, we were the Members responsible for amending it, and that it is quite competent for Members on this
538
side of the House or the opposite side to submit Amendments to the Bill? There is nothing unusual in that.
Mr. G. Campbell: On a point of order —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall hear the hon. Gentleman on a point of order, but I suggest that we might get away from this now.
Mr. Campbell: As a number of new Clauses were to be fitted into the Bill in different places the Clause numbers were to be changed, so it was impossible for hon. Members to be sure of references to the Clauses.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of fact. I hope that we can move on now.
I undertook yesterday to take up a broad point raised by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who wondered whether it was right that Amendments for the Report stage of the Bill could be accepted before the amended Bill was published.
The answer is that Members have the right to table Amendments to a Bill as soon as it is reported. It has always been the practice of the Public Bill Office to accept Amendments before the Bill was published. In consequence, it has sometimes in the past been necessary to accept amendments with incorrect page and line references—
Hon. Members: The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not on the previous issue at all.
It has consequently sometimes been necessary to accept Amendments with incorrect page and line references, which were corrected as soon as the amended Bill was available.

ABOLITION OF FIDELITY BONDING
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Edward Milne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish fidelity bonding and similar practices in the retail and distributive trades; and for connected purposes.
The really iniquitous part of bonding is the manner in which the bond is used by some employers in the retail and distributive trades, and could be used by all, as a means of insuring the employer's stock in a retail establishment at the expense of the manager's integrity and his future employment prospects. If there is need for a fidelity bond, it should be confined to the personal integrity of the manager, and not utilised as an instrument for insuring the stocks in the various retail distributive outlets of the country.
The practice in the retail and distributive trades at present is mainly confined to the retail footwear and retail wines and spirits sections. The system is that where a person is employed as a branch manager the employer indemnifies himself in the event of any loss being sustained through shortage of stock or cash. The employer takes out a bond with an insurance company and himself pays the premiums. The difficulty is that in many instances—in fact, nearly all—the branch managers are in complete ignorance of the procedure and what it can mean if such a bond is claimed upon.
While the system gives protection to the employer, it inflicts injustice upon a branch manager who finds himself with a substantial stock shortage, although he has exercised all reasonable care and supervision. I will endeavour to show in the short time at my disposal how these difficulties can arise.
If the employer seeks indemnity under the bond, the insurance company has to be notified, and this is where part of the practice which we seek to abolish is so unfair. Although it would seem that the reimbursement of the loss by the insurance company is precisely what the bond is intended to provide, and for which the premiums have been paid, the insurers may, after satisfying themselves as to the validity of the loss, demand that the branch manager shall make repayment for the loss.
540
Whether this is done or not, in most cases in the retail distributive trades the manager's services are terminated. The insurance company, in that case, can refuse to issue a further bond to a prospective employer covering that branch manager. Therefore, severe hardship can be inflicted on the employment prospects of the branch manager.
Another harsh aspect of the system is that a branch manager who knows that he has taken every care to avoid a stock shortage may be faced with such a shortage and, rather than take the risk of the bond held against him being claimed upon, he pays up what is charged against him. This makes him appear to be guilty. He prefers, in the prevailing conditions in the retail distributive trades, to pay for the loss out of his own pocket rather than run the greater risk to which I have already referred.
It is perfectly correct that a branch manager, on taking up his appointment, accepts responsibility for stock, and the remuneration he receives is supposed to be adequate to cover such responsibility, but, in the rapidly changing conditions of the retail distributive trades, he is in a more vulnerable position now than was his predecessor in the much smaller outlets of retail distribution for which bonding was introduced.
In addition to the overall supervision of his branch, a branch manager has to spend more time dealing with customers because of the staff shortage. There is a big turnover of labour, and mistakes made by inexperienced staff in the prices charged and in attention to stock may result in shortages arising at the time of stock-taking. Stock-taking is often done by people who have no intimate knowledge of the difficulties experienced in the particular shop where that is being done.
I do not want to deal with clerical errors, customer pilferage, and so on, but they are all the responsibility of a branch manager and with the changing pattern of retail distribution, a single individual finds it extremely difficult to keep pace with these matters. We know, by our shopping experience, what those changes are. There are difficulties experienced not only by branch managers but also by the customers, as we have seen from the increasing number of prosecutions. Clerical errors can arise in the branch,

541
the head office, or the warehouse, but in the last analysis the error has to be faced by the branch manager.
An added burden is put on the branch manager by all this inexperience and carelessness, at whatever level it may occur. Increasingly, relief managers are appointed, because of the size of retail outlets and the methods of retail distribution, and such relief managers are out of touch with the shops which they are called upon to manage.
This is why the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, acting on behalf of its members who are employed particularly in the retail footwear trade, have had discussions with the Multiple Shoe Retailers' Association on the question of altering this system, which appears to be heavily loaded in favour of the employers and severely detrimental to the branch managers.
I do not need to tell the House about the development in the retail distributive trades and about the introduction of Selective Employment Tax, which have added to the complications of a branch manager's existence. The purpose of the tax was to reduce the number of employees in the retail distributive trade.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that he is introducing the Bill under the Ten Minute Rule.
Mr. Milne: I have been keeping a very careful watch on the clock, and I think that I am looking at the same clock as you are, Mr. Speaker. I am reasonably well inside my time at the moment.
The purpose of the tax is to compel many people who are working in the distributive trade to move into the manufacturing industries, and it has led to depleted staffs in many sectors of the distributive trade.
The increase in consumer spending has resulted in many mergers and monopolies in the distributive trades. Increases in sales of 38 per cent. to 40 per cent. are reported. All these things add to the pressures on the branch manager. Many responsibilities which the branch manager
542
entered into on taking up his job are not among those now being encountered by the branch manager in his day-to-day tasks of management.
Board of Trade statistics on the census of retail distribution would show exactly how the present trend in mergers is accelerating. The real revolution in retail distribution is in the increasing power of the multiple store, both in the number of stores, and in the increasing turnover of the retail trade. A multiple shop manager is not, in the main, responsible for altering or for buying the stock. This is usually determined for him at a distance and from a central warehouse.
Following discussions with the Multiple Shoe Retailers' Association and representatives of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, a recommendation has been issued to the Association members to inform employees, if they are bonded, of the extent to which the bond applies, so that at least now the retail shop manager will know what type of bond is being issued and taken upon his behalf.
This is a big step forward, but it is all the more necessary to have legislation to eliminate the evils of bonding and bring the distributive trades in Britain into line with the second half of the century.
In accordance with the Ten Minute Rule covering the presentation of a Private Members' Bill, I conclude by asking the House to give me leave to introduce what is a very necessary Measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milne, Mr. H. Boardman, Mr. George Craddock, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Padley, Mr. J. T. Price, and Mr. Leadbitter.
ABOLITION OF FIDELITY BONDING
Bill to abolish fidelity bonding and similar practices in the retail and distributive trades; and for connected purposes; presented accordingly, and read the First Time; to be read a Second Time upon Friday, 24th May and to be printed. [Bill. 141.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: May I announce to the House that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and a number of her hon. Friends?
  4.1 p.m.
  The Minister of Power (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to raise the Gas Council's power to borrow money by £1,200 million. The reasons for this are explained both in the Memorandum on the Gas and Electricity Bill and in the Gas Council's brochure "Investment in Natural Gas", copies of which are in the Vote Office. It may be helpful, however, if I explain the position briefly.
  The last Act to extend the borrowing powers of the gas industry was the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1965, which set a limit of £1,200 million. It was expected at the time that this would suffice until 1970, but of course, no North Sea gas had been discovered then. Now that we have this gas, which should be of great benefit to the British economy, it is essential to develop its use as rapidly as possible, as it offers gains in terms of relatively low-cost industrial fuel, savings in balance of payments, and security of supply.
  As the House knows from the debate at this time last year on the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order, we are planning on the use of 2,000 million cubic feet a day of natural gas in 1970–71; and the Fuel Policy White Paper envisaged that, beyond this, it would be reasonable to plan on the basis of 4,000 million cubic feet a day by 1975. The effect of this is to double the sale of gas by 1970-71, and to double this again by 1975. This involves massive increases in investment.
  The Gas Council estimates that the rate of investment is likely to average just over £300 million a year for the period up to March, 1973. This compares with only £50 million a year in the 10 years up to and including 1961–62, though there has,
  544
  of course, been a rising trend to the present level since.
  Total capital requirements in the five years up to March, 1973 are expected to be about £1,600 million, of which about £500 million will be met from the industry's internal resources, leaving about £1,100 million to be met from external borrowing. Three-quarters of the estimated capital requirements of £1,600 million—i.e., £1,200 million—comprises expenditure on fixed assets. Of this, almost half, £546 million, is on bulk transmission and storage, while almost another half, £532 million, is on distribution and consumer service.
  About one-sixth of the total, £276 million is for the conversion of consumers' equipment to burn natural gas instead of town gas. The remainder, £246 million, comprises £44 million for North Sea exploration and development, £63 million for increased working capital, £90 million for gas manufacture, and a residual of £49 million for offices, land, vehicles, etc.
  At this point, I must emphasise that this vast expenditure is far from being fully committed. I am not asking the House to agree that this money should be either borrowed or spent at this stage. I am asking the House to agree that, if our expectations about the gas available are fulfilled, the gas industry should be allowed to make the necessary investment to utilise this new fuel.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up one matter which is puzzling me? He said that the total for five years to March, 1973 would be £1,600 million. However, in the figures submitted by the industry to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on Wednesday, 10th April, the industry's total figures for capital investment and fixed assets add up to only £1,221 million. If one adds the right hon. Gentleman's figure of £63 million working capital to that, it comes to £1,284 million, and not £1,600 million.
  Mr. Gunter: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my speech, I will deal with that point presently.
  If it became clear that more, or less, natural gas would be available or sold than has been assumed, the programme would have to be adjusted accordingly. While the industry has broad five-year

  545
  plans, firm plans are made only one year ahead, with provisional plans for a second year. The industry can, therefore, check on the programme as it rolls forward, and, subject of course to Ministerial approval, only commit itself to expenditure in the light of the most recent knowledge.
  In view of the need for flexibility, however, I have incorporated in the Bill two special provisions about the borrowing limits. On the one hand, I have allowed for the possibility that expenditures and borrowings may exceed the current estimates, by including a sizeable margin for contingencies. I think that this is the point puzzling the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). The sum chosen—which due to rounding of other figures comes to the precise-looking £237 million—is large by any standards, but it is not out of line with the scale of the gas industry's operations and with the length of the period—five years—which the borrowing provision is aimed to cover. As the House knows, it is less than three years since the last Borrowing Powers Bill for this industry, despite the inclusion then of a margin of £200 million for contingencies.
  On the other hand, I have proposed an interim borrowing limit, equivalent to only £400 million of new borrowing, which should ensure that the finances of the gas industry come under consideration by the House within two years of the passage of this Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will note that, in view of the Amendment tabled by her and by her hon. Friends.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South) rose—
  Mr. Gunter: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has threatened me with an hour-long speech. I hope that I shall be allowed to get on with mine.
  We shall be able to decide then precisely what provision should be made for borrowing in the ensuing three years or so. If a smaller provision than £800 million seems appropriate, it would be possible for an Order to be made for that, with a second order for extension to the final limit, if the House so wished, as was done in the case of the Electricity Borrowing Powers Order, 1966.
  546
  I see that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is getting edgy again. There is one thing, and one thing only, on which I have agreed with him in the past—that is, that there is the greatest necessity for Parliamentary scrutiny of the use of public money and I would have thought that this provision would satisfy him.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
  In addition to the control exercised by the House through the borrowing limits, the industry's capital expenditures are subject to control through the Government's annual review of the investment programmes of the Gas Council and area boards.
  Moreover, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is at present examining the industry's plans for natural gas and we also have the National Board for Prices and Incomes looking into its efficiency.
  This very heavy capital investment reflects a vast programme of work on the ground. The main pipeline system from Canvey to Leeds has already been supplemented by a feeder from the North Sea—from Easington to Sheffield—and a second is due to be commissioned this year, from Bacton to near Rugby. A third, from Bacton to near Hitchin, is being laid, while two more are planned, to make an average capacity of about 3,000 million cubic feet daily. The backbone main is also being extended to the remaining four area boards so that North Sea gas can be supplied to all of them by 1970.
  The quickest way for the boards to use North Sea gas is to take it into reforming plant at present fed by oil, since this enables them to supply it to the consumer as towns gas, for which, of course, no conversion is required. This substitution of oil feedstock by the new gas will also be especially helpful to the balance of payments in the next few years.
  In the longer term however, it will be cheaper to convert everybody to take North Sea gas "neat" rather than to put up the additional reforming plant which would be needed to convert all this gas to towns gas. Moreover, by virtue

  547
  of the higher calorific value of the natural gas, the capacity of mains and storage is greatly increased. The total cost of the necessary conversions to enable the consumer to take North Sea gas direct will be about £400 million. Nevertheless, there is expected to be saving compared with reforming, of about £300 million at present value.
  As the House knows, the gas industry's take of coal has been progressively reduced as a result of the development of the more economic oil processes. This trend is expected to continue, with the result that, by the early 1970s, coal will no longer be used in the industry. At present and in the immediate future, however, the industry, is doing its best to assist the coal industry in its difficult problems, by using more coal—an extra 800,000 tons this year—than it otherwise would. As provided in the Coal Industry Act, 1967 the Exchequer will contribute to the industry's additional costs flowing from this, to the extent of about £2 million.
  This heavy programme of investment must be geared to the needs of the consumer and I should now like to turn to the industry's plans for selling this gas. In order to double its market by 1970–71, and double it again by 1975, clearly an immense effort will be required. Recently domestic consumption, which represents about 60 per cent. of total demand, has been increasing rapidly—by about 10 per cent. a year—and the industry is confident that substantial further increases will be obtained, especially in space heating and central heating. It will also, however, have to penetrate the industrial market, which currently accounts for about 28 per cent. of total demand, and do so on a substantial scale.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there will be an adequate return on this enormous investment without any large increases in prices to the consumer?
  Mr. Gunter: I am assured of that, and I shall be dealing with prices later.
  The industry expects to make most progress in the premium markets where the special qualities of natural gas—for example, its cleanliness and high calorific value—are of most value, and, inciden-
  548
  tally, where the gain to the balance of payments is greatest since the fuel displaced is likely to be oil. But other industrial outlets will also be required to help secure a good load factor and rapid build-up. In order to make the most rapid possible progress on marketing, the industry has been strengthening its marketing staff and the House will be aware that my predecessor appointed Mr. J. A. Buckley, formerly Chairman of the East Midlands Board, to the Gas Council itself, with effect from 1st May.
  Clearly, to expand sales at this rate, the price of gas will have to be attractive in relation to other fuels. There is great hope, to put it no higher, that North Sea gas will prove a cheap fuel and the gas industry will be under severe commercial pressure to make it so. But it will be four years or so before the new system of supply is fully established and most consumers converted, and in the meantime there will be the very heavy capital investment which I have described. While, therefore, we expect prices eventually to fall it would be over-optimistic to expect this in the near future.
  Certainly, most householders are likely to get a modest reduction as they are converted, but the real immediate beneficiary as natural gas becomes available in each district is likely to be industry, in so far as special terms can be negotiated for large-scale demand with a good load factor or on a seasonal or inter-ruptible basis.
  I now come to Clause 6 of the Bill, in which I seek power to appoint up to another two full-time members of the Gas Council. The Clause needs to be considered as part of the process of development of the organisation of the industry to cope with the major change to natural gas. As I will explain in a moment, I will expect to make further proposals to the House during the next Session of Parliament.
  There is no doubt that the industry as organised under the Gas Act, 1948, has acquitted itself well. It took over about 1,000 gas undertakings and has welded them into concentrated supply systems in each area based on large and efficient gas-making plants. It was in the throes of a revolutionary change to more efficient plant based on oil when the wealth of findings in the North Sea was

  549
  established. In the 'sixties, the image of the industry has changed and demand for gas has grown rapidly. Morale is high. All this is to the credit of the industry.
  As the industry becomes basically a distributor of North Sea gas, the manufacturing functions of area boards will gradually be phased out and it will become increasingly important and, indeed, necessary for decisions to be taken on a national basis and not area by area. Within the present statutory framework, the industry is itself strengthening its machinery for such national decisions.
  At the same time, my predecessor and I have been giving very careful thought to the question whether any statutory changes are now called for. We have had very full consultation with the leaders of the industry, including representatives of labour.
  We now have in mind changes intended to strengthen the central powers and duties of the Gas Council while leaving the area boards with their continuing and essential rô1es of bringing gas to the consumer and of providing the accompanying services. The Gas Council will need to have responsibility for the main policy decisions of the industry, including its investment decisions and financial performance, and the area boards will need to become responsible in those matters to the Gas Council.
  The area boards will remain as statutory bodies with their responsibilities for supply—subject to the general policies of the Gas Council—and for safety, and their chairmen would remain members of the Gas Council and would be appointed by me.
  These changes will require legislation, and I have it in mind to seek a place for the appropriate Bill in the programme for the next Session of Parliament.
  The two further full-time members of the Council for whom provision is made in the Bill, are a further and urgent step in the evolution of the organisation of the industry, following the strengthening of the Council by the 1965 Act. It will enable me to appoint at once, without waiting for the more far-reaching legislation which I have outlined, new Council members to fill key posts at the centre, for example, to take charge of the industry's finance and economic planning.
  550
  Clauses 2 to 4, relating to borrowing in foreign currencies, take up a great deal of the Bill's space, but, I hope, will not take up much of our time today. Both the gas and electricity industries have expressed interest in being able to borrow in foreign currencies, in the expectation that, from time to time, this might be beneficial to them. The House will know that the Air Corporations were given a power to borrow in foreign currencies in Section 6 of the Air Corporations Act, 1966, and that the Greater London Council has been given a similar power.
  No borrowing by the gas and electricity industries in foreign currency is intended at present, but Clauses 2 to 4 have been included in the Bill so that the power will be available for use if needed. In view of the great size of their investment programmes, however, it is unlikely that either of the industries will ever be able to raise any substantial part of their requirements for new money in this way.
  Apart from the practical limitations of the supply of funds, the House will see that control is maintained through the requirement in the Clauses that the borrowing must be from persons, and on terms specified by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury.
  The opportunity of the Bill has also been taken to seek a power for the gas and electricity industries to make their special skills and experience available to developing countries through agreements with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development.
  There is nothing in Clause 5 obliging the industries to give assistance against their inclination, or to incur any expense on their own account. To the extent that the costs of any technical assistance are not recovered from the benefiting country or from one of the international aid agencies, they will be recoverable from the Minister of Overseas Development under agreements with him in accordance with his powers under Section 1 of the Overseas Aid Act, 1966.
  I hope that the House will welcome the removal of the legal impediment to the flow of technical assistance from our gas and electricity industries, whose technical eminence makes them so well placed to give help in this way.

  551
  If I may reflect for a moment upon the Opposition Amendment, I would say that I accept immediately what it says in the first part of it, that there has been no debate on the White Paper on a specific Motion. I am bound to say that the White Paper seems not to have escaped the attention of the House, and that there were three or four occasions when it was discussed at some length. I wonder whether, in view of the history of this, and however cogent the argument that we should have had a specific debate on the White Paper, this would be a real reason for voting against the Second Reading.
  More specifically, I would like to say to hon. Members opposite that I agree entirely with the last sentence of the Amendment, that there is the greatest necessity for Parliamentary review and consideration in detail of the expenditure of public money. I would have thought that the provisions in the Bill met this point. The Amendment says that considerable borrowing is necessary. The £400 million will have to be reviewed in two years and there is no reason at all why we should resist any clamour that this £800 million should be examined.
  As we say in the Memorandum, we can have another Order to provide whatever it may be, another £400 million if it is working out that way, and then perhaps a final Order for another £400 million. I would have thought that this, allied to the other instruments that we have to review expenditure would be sufficient. The Opposition would have a continuing scrutiny of these large sums of public money. I am wondering whether, even at this stage we could not have this Bill without a vote against it.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Not a hope.
  Mr. Gunter: All I am saying is that the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley might give consideration to this, since we have gone out of our way to meet her legitimate fears.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, while recognising the need for a considerable increase in the borrowing powers
  552
  of the Gas Council to use North Sea gas, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, by permitting a further increase in public expenditure of up to £1,200 million, doubles the existing powers at a time when the White Paper on Fuel Policy, Command Paper No. 3438, from which it stems has not been debated, and when the most rigorous Parliamentary scrutiny of all public expenditure is especially necessary."
  I greatly enjoyed the Minister's speech, as we almost always enjoy his speeches. In a way, he is one of the most difficult of right hon. Gentlemen to battle with, because he is so nice about everything. It would make one's job a lot easier if he were not so nice. I hope that he will listen carefully to what I have to say, because we have tabled this Amendment in a very serious manner.
  There are very good reasons for not doing what he said, namely, allowing the whole amount, and then saying that it will be all right because we have control and that there will be opportunity for another Order. I can well imagine what would happen if we let the whole amount go through. The right hon. Gentleman would be back to the House with an Order and he would make the same sort of speech and say, "There cannot be much doubt that industry should have this amount as well".
  May I now develop the argument which we wish to deploy over the Bill? First, we must look at it—the Bill requires enormous extra sums to be provided— against the general economic background. It is one in which we require, in the coming years, stringent control of public expenditure. We have had many debates on this, and the Government have had to go through some careful and close examinations and come up with decisions which have been very unpalatable to hon. Members opposite. There is no question but that we have to have stringent control of public expenditure.
  We also have to have stringent control of public sector expenditure. For example, the Chancellor said on Budget day:
  "Looking further ahead"—
  that is, after mid-1969—
  "… we shall ensure that the claims of the public sector are compatible with the total resources available as compared with other calls upon them. This will be the central task of this year's review of public expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 259.]

  553
  We are to consider a very large new claim from the public sector. We must consider it in relation to other claims and see whether the full amount of this claim is justified under the very criteria which the Chancellor set out. There is also in the economic background the undertaking given by the Chancellor to the International Monetary Fund, that the central Government's operating requirements should not exceed £1,000 million next year. I note, in passing, that it would have exceeded that this year but for vastly increased taxation.
  The Minister is putting forward to us for approval an enormously increased amount of extra borrowing for this particular industry—up to £1,200 million. It is pertinent to see how this borrowing can be financed. There are not many ways in which borrowing for the public sector can be financed. The first possibility is by taxation. The Minister is suggesting that one way of financing £1,200 million extra would be from taxation; that would put no extra charge at all on the Government's borrowing requirement. So we have to consider it against that background. Money does not just come from nowhere. Someone has to provide it.
  The second means would be by genuine Government borrowing. Anyone who has read the debates on the National Loans Fund will know that there has been very little genuine Government borrowing over the last six to 10 years; and I know that part of that occurred during the lifetime of the Government of my party. The third method of financing this enormous sum is by inflation, or by printing the money. That, too, has serious consequences for individuals or for the economy. It is against that background that one must look at this particular demand for new expenditure, bearing in mind that the likely ways of financing it are by taxation or by inflation, with a little borrowing in between.
  So much for the general economic background, which is extremely important. Let us look for a moment at the general fuel background to which the Minister has referred. First, there is the White Paper which he mentioned. This purported to plan the change from a two-fuel to a four-fuel economy and its objective was to re-assess the balance
  554
  between the fuels. We all know that one cannot have a policy for one fuel which does not have very extensive effects on others; and one of the Ministry's most difficult jobs is to co-ordinate the programmes of the nationalised industries and assess their investment programmes. I am quite sure we have not yet learned in politics how to deal with the nationalised industries. I know full well there is a Select Committee sitting on this subject which has not yet reported but in the meantime we have to try to coordinate the several programmes and to produce some coherent results.
  That fuel policy said that one of its purposes was to lay down long-term policy guide lines which could be modified and adjusted in response to new developments. Broadly speaking, going through that White Paper, one sees that it was really done in two slices—planning up to about 1971 and then projections forward from that period. I note, again, that the Bill goes beyond the immediate planning period up to 1971 and goes very far indeed into the realm of conjecture. The period to 1971 was particularly significant in regard to the effect of this policy on coal, because the provision we made for coal terminated in 1971, before the provisions of this Bill have come to an end, so that it is important to consider the two together.
  We must also consider the White Paper on Fuel Policy in relation to the future for gas, because there were extensive sections on this and all had certain characteristics. One of those characteristics, which was scarcely touched on in the Minister's speech, one of the outstanding things about natural gas, is the uncertainty of the amount, the uncertainty of the rate of depletion and the uncertainty about sales. Indeed, whenever we look in the White Paper at comments on natural gas there are conclusions about the uncertain strategy, the uncertain amount, the uncertain field. On the face of it, this does not seem at all a recipe for approving £1,200 million.
  Let me give specific examples. Paragraph 14 of the White Paper said:
  "For the longer term, much more needs to be known before it will be possible to establish precisely the rôle to be played by natural gas in our energy supplies."
  It went on to deal with the uncertainties

  555
  and in paragraph 24 it returned to the same theme:
  "The uncertainties are too great for it to be possible to settle the long-term strategy on gas absorption."
  The White Paper returned to this again in Appendix II, when it talked about the uncertainty of the total amount and went on to speak of another uncertainty which we are always up against in fuel policy —uncertainty as to whether this fuel will be displaced by another which may be cheaper. So we have to keep in the back of our minds the thought that the expenditure which we may or may not approve today may prove abortive in 20 years' time because another fuel or another system has been discovered.
  The whole of the White Paper is really shrouded in uncertainty so far as its passages about natural gas are concerned and in looking at the Gas Council's case and the Memorandum accompanying the Bill I had the feeling that they had taken the tentative conclusions without the qualifications which the fuel White Paper made at every stage.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: In an interesting debate of this kind, to dwell so much, in the manner the hon. Lady has, on uncertainties, is not quite a fair presentation of what is in the White Paper. Would she agree, so as to amplify the point she has made, that the words following those she has used are:
  "But we know already that the reserves are very substantial and this is the reason for the Government's decision to authorise construction"—
  of pipe lines, and so forth? The hon. Lady has stressed only the uncertainties.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says about the sentence which follows in the White Paper. We already know that the reserves are very substantial. What we do not yet know is the ease with which those can be got to the consumer. We have only one small field which is delivering, and that has come up against far more difficulties than were expected because of the uncertainties in any new operation of this kind.
  Turning to the point to which I was coming, past investment policies in relation to the fuel industry; again we are looking at an enormous sum to be spent
  556
  to produce more energy, to get more sales. We have not been very successful, as a House, in our judgment of past investment policies in relation to other fuel industries.
  We have, for example, poured capital into coal to produce coal at any price and the result has been that an enormous quantity of coal, about 28 million tons, is now on the ground and cannot readily be sold. There we have an enormous investment a large part of which has proved abortive because we have already had to write off a lot; and one of the things we shall want to know is how much more has to be written off if the gas policy goes througn.
  Then we went into electricity and poured enormous sums into that industry. Its borrowing limits are in excess of £4,000 million. This was a great new technology and we invested enormous sums in it; and according to last year's report, the industry is short of sales. It has more investment than sales would have warranted and the result has been an increase in the price to consumers because the cost of investment had to be spread over smaller sales. That is the record against which we are looking at this new investment. There have been these failures properly to assess the investment in particular fuel industries, failures which have led to surplus stocks or surplus electricity. The Minister cannot blame us if we are very wary when we look at this new Measure to ensure that we are not doing exactly the same again, particularly against the background of a totally new industry and the uncertainties which I have outlined.
  Mr. Lubbock: Would not the hon. Lady agree that there is this very substantial difference between the two examples which she quoted, that the market for coal is declining and perhaps vanishing, whereas the market for electricity is ever increasing? If one made some small errors in one's capital investment in the past, one would catch up with them later with the growth of demand.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I do not disagree that the market for electricity is expanding. But it does not alter the fact that we could have avoided some of the price increases now had our assessment of the amount of investment been better. The load forecasts were badly wrong.
  Sir G. Nabarro: May I reinforce my hon. Friends argument? I am grateful to her for giving a lesson to the right hon. Gentleman in Parliamentary courtesies. My hon. Friend quoted the undistributed stocks of coal at 28 million tons. She might have added that in terms of the nation's resources another 14 million tons of distributed stocks are lying on the ground, making a total of 42 million tons, worth about £220 million of the nation's finances sterilised and wrapped up. Why does not the Minister apply himself to that factor?
  Mrs. Thatcher: I am sure that my hon. Friend has the figures absolutely right. I do not usually quote the distributed stocks, for one reason, which my hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate. The distributed stocks have usually been paid for, so that the Coal Board has received an amount of money for them. They do not enter into the deficit.
  There is one other background factor regarding the attitude of the public to the great development of North Sea gas. Most ordinary members of the public would have taken the view that there appeared to be a large supply. Therefore, because the raw material costs are negligible, they would have it in their homes at very much cheaper prices than any other fuel. It is slowly emerging that this is an absolute myth, and that the cost of getting the gas to their homes and of converting the equipment in their homes is so great that it will negative the advantages of the cheaper raw material.
  We shall be very wise to make it clear to the public that there are not substantial price reductions coming in gas. Indeed, they would not believe us if we said that there were. They have just suffered an enormous increase in the price of gas. It does not help very much if we say, "We shall increase the price a lot now, but take it down a ½d. a therm when you get the natural gas".
  We must look at the matter from the consumers' viewpoint. The costs of conversion are very great. In theory, they are not borne by the consumer; in practice, they are. Equally, in practice, what happens is that somebody comes to one's house, shakes his head sadly over one's gas cooker and says that it is unconvertible because it is too old, although it is working perfectly well, and shakes his head sadly over the gas fire, which gives
  558
  perfectly good service, and says "You should have a new one". This is happening on quite a large scale, because people carry on using equipment for a very long time.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson) indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman never reads the women's pages in magazines and newspapers. He should. He might then know more about gas and electricity and the public than he does. People carry on using their equipment for far longer than manufacturers or gas boards would approve.
  Mr. Frank Tomney: There is another side to the story. The gas boards do not install central heating systems; they have not the gas fitters to do the job. These jobs are let out to contractors. That is all right if the contractors are efficient. Usually they are, because they are qualified. But what happens afterwards when it comes to making repairs? The gas board sends along a sub-contractor. I have had this experience. The subcontractor charges 100 per cent. more than the gas board.
  Mrs. Thatcher: May I give one of the examples to which I was referring when I told the Parliamentary Secretary that he should read the women's pages. There was a very amusing article in the Sunday Express on 21st April by Veronica Papworth entitled,
  "I am going to be converted—and there's nothing I can do about it."
  She gives an account of how the gas man called. The article states:
  "… we looked at the gas fires in the bedrooms and his face grew graver and graver. 'I'm afraid', he advised me, rather in the manner of a doctor diagnosing smallpox, 'that we shall have to take them away'…. How much … was a new one?' Roughly £20'."
  He looked at something else in the dining room.
  "'Out of date', said the young man firmly, 'there's nothing to be done with that'. 'But it goes like a bomb', I protested."
  I had some gas fires in my old house before I went into the one where I am now in which gas is not laid on, so I have not a vested interest in the Bill. The

  559
  public should be told, and told plainly, that reductions in gas prices are a myth and totally unlikely to come about.
  I turn to the case which the Minister quotes for the increased powers which has been put to us by the Gas Council in the brochure to which the Memorandum refers. I will take it point by point, because there is a very convenient summary at the beginning. This is the case for which the gas industry is asking for extra borrowing powers. The first point I take was:
  "The Government state in the White Paper on Fuel Policy that they expect natural gas to meet about 15 per cent. of the total demand for energy in Britain by 1975".
  That is a direct, authoritative statemen. It gives no hint of the background uncertainties to which I have referred.
  Point No. 2 is very important:
  "… this policy involves ' the wholesale displacement of existing gas-making plant and methods, a nation-wide conversion programme, and an expansion of sales by nearly fourfold between now and the mid-1970s'."
  What we shall be doing if the programme goes through is writing off not obsolete equipment, but brand-new technologically up-to-date equipment which is now being installed to meet demands and will continue to be installed for the next 10 years. Certainly, the coal carbonisation plant is being written off, but so is the oil feed stock plant, which has already caused a revolution in technology. This is one of the costs of introducing natural gas and one of the reasons why it will not be cheap.
  We are entitled to ask the Minister whether it is wise for the economy that new, up-to-date equipment should be written off much faster than it should be when it would give many years' service and is itself a tremendous technological advance for the gas industry. But the right hon. Gentleman has accepted that it should be written off over a period of 15 years, which is far less than its normal life, and he appears—
  Mr. J. T. Price Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton) rose—
  Mrs. Thatcher: May I finish my sentence? It will be an unusual experience for me in this debate.
  560
  I understood from the evidence given to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is, I note, a member, that the period was 15 years or the rest of the natural depreciation life, whichever was the less. There seems to be some discrepancy. Some documents say 15 years and some say 10 years. In any event, it is being written off whilst it is still comparatively new and would give many years of service. The Minister seems to have accepted, even in our present economic conditions, that that is good for the economy of the country. I question it.
  We then come to "a nationwide conversion programme", on which I have already commented.
  Concerning
  "an expansion of sales by nearly fourfold between now and the mid-1970s",
  the Memorandum submitted by the Gas Council to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries said that that fourfold expansion to the mid-1970s could not take place on existing proven reserves; more would have to be discovered before that expansion could take place. We are here in the realm of supreme uncertainty. I will give the exact quotation from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Sub-Committee B, Wednesday, 10th April, 1968, paragraph 5, on page 19:
  "The Government's White Paper on Fuel Policy, Command 3438, accepted that it would be a reasonable assumption for planning purposes to set the 4,000 m.c.f.d. target as early as 1975, although for this quantity to be produced the discovery of additional reserves to those already found will be necessary."
  Here is a policy based on the finding of additional reserves and assuming that they will be found. We are being asked to approve £1,200 million depending on the finding of additional reserves.
  I turn to the third point:
  "The changes in production technology have kept gas a competitive fuel and sales have grown at an average rate of 9 per cent. per annum in the last four years."
  They have. On the oil technology, gas has done very well. I have been impressed by the rate at which the new technology has been accepted and the efficiency with which it was produced. If the Minister accepts the rate of obsolescence which has been mentioned, he will have a tremendous problem of redundancy in the

  561
  gas industry as well as in the coal industry. There will not be jobs of the same calibre in the gas industry under the new natural gas as there have been under the technology which depended on oil feedstock.
  The fourth point is:
  "Natural gas is likely to make the largest contribution to import saving when supplied as a premium fuel."
  This is one of the great conclusions of the White Paper. It is really saying that we are embarking on probably £1,000 million of expenditure to get a different sort of gas to cookers and central heating systems on the assumption that the sales will go up fourfold.
  I am not prepared to accept that assumption. I think that when a number of these fires have to be changed, at considerable cost and people realise that the price will not come down, the demand will not be there to the same extent as in the past. The demand will not rise at the same rate. I question whether we are wise in spending this enormous sum on getting a different gas to fires, central heating systems and cookers which are working well and being supplied with town gas at the moment.
  The fifth point is:
  "Bulk sales to industry and possibly some power stations will help to build up quickly the total flow of gas from the North Sea fields."
  There is probably some point in saying that to get the benefit of natural gas to the economy we have to get it cheaply into industry. If that is the economic benefit, we do not need to get it to every cooker and central heating apparatus in the country. If we want to benefit the - economy we go to the industry; we do not need this enormous conversion and distribution network.
  I suspect that we are getting the costs all ways up. We are getting the expenditure on the domestic conversion network and we are having to write off modern plant. This will have its effect on coal, in which we have already invested a lot, and will produce further redundancies. Does the Minister now see where some of our doubts arise? Whatever happens, we are pouring investment into every aspect. I doubt whether the economy will ultimately benefit to the extent indicated by the Minister.
  562
  Just a word about, "and possibly some power stations ", because it is said that gas will go into power stations. I am not a member of the Select Committee and, as right hon. and hon. Members know, one cannot get the transcripts of evidence until long after the evidence is given. However, from what I can make out, the question of the supply of gas to power stations is in a bit of a muddle. It could only be with the Minister's consent and it could not be before 1971. After 1973, according to the Government's White Paper, the power stations will be entitled to choose the most economic fuel, but they could not choose gas, because gas has first to be offered to the area boards, and they could get it after that only with the Minister's consent.
  Mr. Palmer: The hon. Lady can take it from me that natural gas is being used at Hams Hall power station, near Birmingham, and being used successfully.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I take that from the White Paper as well. I think that there is also one other which is being converted. Presumably, that has been done as an experimental project with the consent of the Minister.
  I want to inquire about the other implications of putting gas into power stations. Lord Robens gave evidence to the Select Committee the other day. I have not got the transcript, but I thought that he asked a cogent question, which we should also ask. The provision that we made for redundant miners to help the coal industry expires in 1971. If we put gas into power stations—which may be very advisable, but I leave that to the judgment of others—what will be the effect on the coal mining industry? Are there to be other redundancies in addition to those we already expect, and shall we have to make further provision for them because we burn natural gas to the boilers? Are we to make further provision for the write off of more pits and further provision for social benefits for miners? These are questions the Minister should ask.
  I also understand, dealing with the period 1971 to 1975, that this policy was not discussed with the Chairman of the National Coal Board. I understand that upstairs he said that the White Paper's figures up to 1975 were done without any

  563
  consultation of any kind at his level in the Board. It does not seem to be carrying out the Minister's duty of co-ordination between the fuel industries and the duty of the most effective investment of people's money if there was not that consultation and not the requisite amount of co-ordination.
  The sixth point concerned the amount spent on fixed assets and other things. It transpires that the gas industry wants £1,600 million to carry out this uncertain programme. As more evidence comes before the Select Committee more doubts seem to arise about how far the programme could have been thought through because of the uncertainty. We have seen only a comparatively small part of the evidence. The part in Point 6 which takes my breath away, although it seems to have no effect on the Minister, is that, when it has said how much extra it wants, over an extra £1,000 million, it goes on with this immortal sentence:
  "The industry is aware that the next five years will be a period of rapid change and that its planning must remain flexible. In view of all the circumstances, the Council considers it would be sensible to have a reserve borrowing Dower of £237 million."
  Just £237 million extra between friends! It is quite incredible, at a time when we need stringent control in the public sector, to say, "Please, we want £1,000 million. There are so many doubts and uncertainties. We must be flexible, but we must not be flexible in reducing the amount. You must give us flexibility in case we have made any great errors of judgment so can we have another £237 million?" But that £237 million would have to be found in taxation, savings or inflation; on top of everything else, £237 million for the mistakes that have been made or the calculations which they could not do.
  Mr. Leadbitter Mr. Leadbitter rose—
  Mrs. Thatcher: Please let me get on.I am taking up far too much time, although it is not really my fault. It is other hon. Members who are taking it up.
  That is the case which the gas industry makes for requiring the extra £1,200 million. The Memorandum before the House then points out, as did the Minister, that this could be done in two slices. It could be done with a first slice of an extra £400 million. If this extra £400 million
  564
  were added to the borrowing powers which have not yet been used, there would be over £500 million available in borrowing powers to the Gas Council.
  In view of the uncertainties which I had described at length and the possible effect on other fuel industries, that is, I suggest, absolutely as much as we should let them have at present. Then the Minister should have come back to the House, not with an Order late at night but with another fuel Bill. By that time we should know the result of the investigation of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries into the Gas Council's case, which is being conducted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster); we should know the effect upon coal; we should know the other possible uses of natural gas. I think that it would be unwise to go beyond that extra £400 million, which is, in fact, an extra £500 million above what they have used at present.
  The Memorandum also refers to other new borrowing powers, which the Minister, I thought, skated over rather quickly. It is, of course, very unsual for a utility undertaking to have power to raise money in foreign currency. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one other case of a nationalised industry having such power, but that industry is a substantial earner of foreign currency; therefore, it can repay in the coin in which it borrows. This industry is not a substantial earner of foreign currency; therefore, someone else will have to find the foreign currency with which to repay.
  By permitting foreign borrowing the Minister is defeating part of his own argument. Part of his argument for natural gas is the great saving in foreign currency that its injection into the system will produce. That is already partly modified by the fact that a lot of the capital which has gone into developing North Sea gas has been foreign, and that foreign capital has to be serviced, which means a lot of money going out annually. The right hon. Gentleman is now further defeating his own argument by saying that the industry can borrow foreign money, which means that that loan will have to be serviced annually in foreign currency. So if his argument is foreign exchange saving he is partially defeating it by the provisions in his own Bill. If he wants to save foreign exchange he ought not to replace coal with gas.

  565
  I should like to tackle the Minister on another point. It is said in the Memorandum and in the Bill itself that any foreign borrowing would go against the total borrowing limit. Two points arise out of this. First, the foreign borrowing would not be done through the National Loans Fund. Therefore, it would not affect in any way the Government's central borrowing requirement. I suspect that this is a way of getting round the central borowing requirement, of spending more money but not having it enter into the calculations of that requirement.
  Second, the amount borrowed would go against the total, but there is a provision in Clause 2 with regard to the Electricity Council, and it is reflected in other Clauses with regard to the other councils, that the borrowing limit can be exceeded to redeem the loan. So the £1,200 million is not the full extent of the borrowing which, if the Bill goes through, we shall be asked to consider. It would be greater than that by whatever amount the Treasury said the loan could be.
  I hope that I have said more than enough to express the great uncertainty which surrounds the development of North Sea gas. I am the first to admit that we must get some of it into the system, but, in view of the uncertainties —the fact that the Select Committee is now investigating it, that new problems arise every day—we should be unwise to give the total amount which the Minister is asking. No harm would be done by giving the lesser amount. Indeed, I think that it would be greatly to the advantage of the nation in the present economic circumstances, if we stopped at a further £400 million. I hope that the Minister will consider what I have said, as I have considered what he has said.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: The House enjoyed enormously the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who used a number of very sound arguments with which I agreed, but she did not convince me that the Opposition Amendment was necessary. There is a very strong case for the House debating the White Paper, but I do not see why the gas industry or the electricity industry should have to wait for its money until the House of Commons arranges its business better,
  566
  which seems to be the implication of the Amendment.
  I want to raise three points on this Bill. The first is in connection with the proposal that the electricity industry and the gas industry should have the power to borrow capital from abroad if necessary. I welcome this because I think that it will lead to a more sensible approach generally to the whole question of raising capital for the nationalised industries. I will try to explain why.
  I have always been a critic of the way in which electricity prices to consumers were increased last autumn by the area electricity boards. There were increases of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. in some cases, and increases of that magnitude are obviously no laughing matter at a time when electricity is used extensively in homes by every social class in the community, quite apart from the effect on industry and commerce. In my own constituency—and I am sure that this has been the experience of hon. Members generally and certainly of my hon. Friends on this side of the House—this increase did much to diminish public confidence in the prices and incomes policy.
  The principal reason for those increases was that it was necessary to allow for the; situation which had been brought about by the earlier growth rate in electricity consumption proposed in the National Plan. At that time, several years ago now, looking ahead to a vastly increased growth rate, the electricity supply industry borrowed a great deal of money in order to make plant, equipment, transmission lines and distribution systems available.
  Then there followed the deflationary policy of my right hon. Friends, as a result of which there has been a cutback in the rate of electricity growth. Therefore, there is at the moment in the industry a good deal of unremunerative capital. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, this does not matter too much because it is a temporary difficulty; it is only a matter of time before the natural load growth overtakes the surplus generating and transmission capacity. As we used to say when I worked in the electricity supply industry, it is always a good thing to get extra copper into the plant

  567
  or into the ground; sooner or later the load will follow it.
  Hence, a sensible policy for the electricity boards, and one which most of them would have preferred to follow— something which my right hon. Friends who are responsible for fuel and power policy have never disclosed—would have been to spread the costs reflected in increased prices over three or four years ahead. Instead, the industry was required to get back on target in only one year. That meant to maintain its standard financial rate of return on assets, which is fixed for the electricity industry —no one knows why this figure was chosen, since it is different from that for the gas industry—at 124 per cent. That is the magic figure which the electricity industry must work to.
  Since increased borrowing from the Treasury was forbidden—I suspect that this was a Treasury policy anyway—the consumers had to find the money immediately. In short, today's consumers are having to pay the charges on the capital for equipment which tomorrow's consumers will use. Had the electricity boards, through the Electricity Council, been able to borrow overseas, as they were prepared to do, to cover the charges of their temporarily unremunerative capital, that would have helped considerably to steady prices.
  I am not of course suggesting that favourable term overseas borrowing would by itself have avoided entirely the sizeable increase in retail tariffs, but it would have done something to modify it. To modify it further, two other steps would have been necessary, neither of which the Government had yet taken. I had some correspondence with the previous Minister on this issue. It was, first, necessary to equalise the rate of return expected on assets as between the gas and electricity industries. As I said, electricity is expected to return 12·4 per cent. The gas industry, which we are told is a bright, prosperous and flourishing industry, is still required to return only 10·4 per cent. There must surely be some kind of argument somewhere for the difference, but it is hard for those in the electricity supply industry to understand what it is. Would my hon. Friend at least try to explain the reason for the difference when he replies.
  568
  Another argument which could be used in support of my thesis that these steep increases were not necessary all at once is to be found in the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the Central Electricity Generating Board's bulk supply tariff, which points out that, in electricity supply, because of the sharp division between generation and distribution, the C.E.G.B. has been able, over some years, to balance its books by pushing some of its costs on to the area boards and, thus, on to the consumer.
  The sensible suggestion of the Prices Board—it is a pity that we had to wait for it to suggest it—is that the industry should be taken together and that the C.E.G.B., for which I have the highest technical respect, should understand that it too should make economies. Else it is all too simple for the Generating Board to push the obligation on to the area boards, which naturally, since they have to buy their electricity from the C.E.G.B., can all too easily go into the red and therefore they increase prices instead to the consumer.
  If the electricity supply industry and the gas industry—the argument applies to both—were allowed greater flexibility in borrowing policy, they could decide these complicated tariff questions for themselves, and some of the recent steep price increases might have been avoided.
  The second issue may be a constant theme of mine, but that does not mean that it is not a good argument. It is about investment in the electricity supply industry. The industry is often treated as a great spending villian because it invests so much capital, but it is bound to do so. Electricity is basic to the whole economy. One cannot run a modern industrial economy without vast quantities of electric power; if our productivity and standard of life is to advance, investment in electrical plant and power facilities generally must also advance.
  But I regret that my right hon. Friends in charge of the Ministry since the present Government were elected are still following the bad road which their predecessors followed. That is, they are still allowing investment in electricity supply to be dictated largely by narrow Treasury considerations. We are likely again, in a few years, when the economy

  569
  begins to expand, to face a shortage of electrical plant capacity. But, apart from the danger of an actual shortage of capacity in three or so years, because of what I think are the present shortsighted economies, a too narrow margin between electrical maximum possible demand and actual installed capacity tends to inhibit commercial investment, and hampers the industry in building an economic and well-balanced load pattern.
  I believe that the intention now is to stabilise on a 17 per cent. margin of installed capacity over possible maximum demand. To most people outside the industry—I am sure, to those in charge of the national finances—this may seem an ample margin, but it does not, of course, allow for emergencies. It particularly does not allow for what can happen all too easily when large power station installations such as the 500 megawatt sets which we are installing now go out of service because of breakdown or enforced maintenance.
  It is one thing to have a 17 per cent. margin when using 60 megawatt machines, but when using 500 megawatt turbo alternators it is taking a considerable risk. Most European electricity undertakings—this remark allows for a substantial measure of interconnection, which on the Continent does not go quite as far generally as it does in Britain— work on an average margin of about 20 per cent. Apart from the question of the security of supply, and apart from the occasional dangers which are involved because of the new techniques of generation where much larger machines are used, it does not allow old plant, which is very expensive to run, to be taken out of service. By taking old plant, which is very expensive when run on peak load, out of service electricity can be made cheaper to produce.
  The exporting of electrical plant is important to Britain. I do not want to seem to be in any sense biased against the gas industry, but that industry does not export much plant. The electricity industry taken as a whole—manufacturing and supply—does. There is a direct relationship between exports of electrical plant and investment at home. It is doubtful if we can export everything that we were previously using at home. It is generally recognised that there should be at least a ratio of 40:60 between home use and
  570
  foreign sales. If we are to export 60 per cent., we should still be installing about 40 per cent. of the total output at home. In two countries whose economies are roughly comparable to ours— West Germany and Japan—the growth rate of electrical plant installed up to 1980, as far as one can obtain figures, is much greater than it is here.
  I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will not take too easily for granted the old financial argument that, when it is desired to cut national investment, we should cut into electricity supply investment on a large scale. I regard this as short-sighted, both from the home expansion point of view and from the point of view of our export trade.
  The third issue I want to raise was talked about at some length by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Lady. I have real doubts about the activity of the gas industry in the matter of natural gas use. The present Ministerial policy appears to be to give the Gas Council as quickly as possible natural gas so that it can be used profitably by the Gas Boards. I take the view that the Gas Council should not be organising the direct marketing of natural gas in the wholesale sense. I would like the system to be that which is used in the rest of Western Europe, namely, a marketing agency. The marketing agency would acquire the gas as it was produced and would resell it to all those who could make use of it, including the Gas Boards.
  Such a State marketing agency would be able to hold the balance fairly in the use of natural gas as between all the fuel and power industries. After all. natural gas is a new source of primary energy. Why should it automatically go to the gas industry for them to use it in competition with the other fuel industries just because it happens to be in this form processed by nature? It should be available generally for the use of the economy. Has this sensible proposal been considered seriously in the Ministry? Last year the Labour Party conference carried a resolution to this effect.
  Recently I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister if he would tell us the total capital cost of using natural gas on present policy assumptions. He gave me in answer the figure of £400 million. 1 appreciate that he was referring simply to the conversion of domestic appliances.

  571
  I have been told that the true total cost is £1,500 million. The Minister gave the figure today as £1,600 million. This is the first time this figure has ever come out in the House, I believe.
  Sir G. Nabarro: It has been issued before.
  Mr. Palmer: I am glad to hear that. The hon. Gentleman is always well informed. Is a proper return on this capital expenditure certain? Has this question been studied. My right hon. Friend said little about the return on the money. If this enormous expenditure is to be justified, there must be an adequate financial return on it. It probably means, in terms of resources, that the natural gas reserves will be depleted in about 15 to 20 years since the gas will have to be sold to give the return. This means that a larger market must be created very quickly for the gas industry. As the hon. Lady said, this will probably be at the expense of the coal industry. It will be also at the expense of the electricity industry and thus, indirectly, at the expense of the coal industry. It will be at the expense of the oil industry. I am not saying that I shall shed too many tears about that, because the oil companies are mainly in the natural gas industry, anyhow, and can switch from one source of profit to another.
  We can understand why the gas industry is now casting a jealous eye on the domestic space heating and cooking load. But should we allow this behaviour? There is such an enormous national investment already, quite properly on the basis of competition, by the electricity industry in this domestic sphere.
  I think the right policy would be to use natural gas mainly in industry in bulk. The electricity supply industry can be treated like any other industrial consumer. Let it buy natural gas on a commercial basis and distribute the converted energy. At Hams Hall this is being done at present. That contract was negotiated freely between the local region of the Generating Board and the appropriate organisation on the gas side on a straight commercial basis. It does not necessarily mean the displacement of coal. Pulverised coal and natural gas
  572
  can be burned together in the same furnace at the same time. The mix can be varied.
  We can explore this question when we debate the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology tomorrow, which deals with the nuclear power industry. I do not think that my right hon. Friend even mentioned nuclear power. What is to happen 15 to 20 years from now when there has been this vast expenditure on gas networks and on the conversion of apparatus? The supply of natural gas then runs out? We should then have the fast breeder reactor available, with electric power in abundance to do all that gas can do. Will we then use scarce foreign currency to import natural gas in bulk from Algeria or elsewhere simply because we have put money into the apparatus? Or shall we discard it as we have mining capacity?
  I suggest that the gas industry is being given its head far too much. It is the duty of the Minister to use his statutory powers to co-ordinate these matters more sensibly and I hope that greater thought will be given to the need for co-ordination in view of the vast investment in natural gas and the parallel vast and appropriate investment for the future in nuclear fission. I regret—I appreciate that hon. Gentlemen opposite may not support this view—that from the beginning the State has not taken a greater public holding in natural gas because that would have made it easier for these matters to be adjusted.
  There is talk in the electricity supply and gas industries of a new reorganising Measure. I suppose one is due because the 10-year legislative itch has applied certainly to electricity since about 1919. The last Electricity Act came in 1957, so I suppose that we are about ready for another one. If this is to happen, I trust that it will happen quickly because uncertainty and indecision is bad for morale, especially for an industry such as electricity supply, which I know well. It has built up fine teams of men and women who are working well for the benefit of the industry and the country. Their morale is bound to suffer when there is uncertainty about the future of what has hitherto been an expanding industry. Thus, if a decision is to be taken, it should be taken quickly.

  573
  I would be out of order today in suggesting the type of decision that might be taken. I would like to see a more flexible organisation for gas and electricity which would make it possible for these industries to evolve according to changing; circumstances without having to seek a new Act of Parliament on each occasion. There must be Parliamentary accountability. I have always favoured the mechanisms which have been established, such as select committees. However, to place industries which must change with changing times in a legislative cycle operating every 10 years, alternating from one Act to another, is no way to run these modern industries. They should make their own decisions, according to the circumstances, about the organisational forms they should take. We need self-adjusting arrangements for the gas and electricity industries which will fit into the second half of the century instead of tying them in a legislative straitjacket they have outgrown.
  5.33 p.m.
  Colonel C. G. Lancaster: I will not comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) about the electricity industry because the Bill is mostly concerned with the gas industry. Like hon. Members on both sides, I find myself in an invidious position today. We are in the midst of an investigation into the impact of North Sea gas on the power industries. The evidence before us at present is incomplete and if we came to any decisions in this debate we would detract from the objectivity with which we must apply ourselves in writing our final report and submitting it to Parliament. There are, however, certain aspects on which one is entitled to comment, even at this stage. They are of a factual nature and, therefore, not subject to the matters I mentioned in connection with our report.
  It is too easily suggested at this stage that we have as yet found natural gas in the North Sea on a scale which will be necessary to take advantage of the large amount of borrowing to which we are asked to agree. One hon. Member seemed to think that a great deal had been found. That is not so to date. If we have found one-third of the existing resources in the Dutch coalfield, that is as far as we can claim. It is to be
  574
  hoped—indeed, this may be so—that we shall find other deposits on the Continental Shelf, but they have not been found yet and, therefore, we are in a state of conjecture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) pointed out, we are being asked to agree to a great deal of borrowing in a situation which has a considerable degree of conjecture attached to it.
  The inquiry into North Sea gas is the most complicated investigation in which I have taken part, and I have taken part in every inquiry since the present Select Committee was set up. It makes an impact on so many aspects of our fuel and power industries, as well as on the economy of the country, that it will be an extremely difficult matter on which to reach a clear decision on the right recommendation to put forward.
  We all hope that natural gas will be found in abundance, and it is fair to say, on events so far, that from the national point of view the more quickly we exploit it the better, for that will give a faster and better return on the capital that is required. Although that may seem an imprudent policy, I suggest that it is the right one considering that, with the exhaustion of these resources, atomic energy and other sources of power may be available to take its place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Finch-ley was wholly justified in the line she took. We need to be prudent. We cannot hand out monies just on the request of Departments. Departments are entitled to ask for reasonable sums meanwhile, and I believe that the request made by the Minister—for about £300 million a year for the next few years—should not be denied him, because if we are to find this gas we must undoubtedly undertake some heavy expenditure in view of the possibility of the required amount of gas being present.
  The physical requirements are expensive and we must adapt ourselves as time goes on. We want to get the main grid system into being and we need storage. Yesterday I went to Canvey Island to see the progress being made in the storage of imported Algerian methane under frozen conditions in the strata. That storage has nothing to do with the storage which will be required for North Sea gas. That comes under a different heading. It is

  575
  germane to our discussion only because, on this occasion, Sir Henry Jones, when speaking to the Press—perhaps he was rather more cautious than he might have been because of my presence—about the price to the consumer in the premium market could only claim that it would be less than the price of gas made at present by conventional methods; that is, by carbonisation, which will undoubtedly tend to increase with the rising costs which carbonisation must attract to itself. It is not a very strong claim to make that it will be cheaper than the existing method of producing town gas by carbonisation, but he may have been cautiously wise.
  I warn the House, however, that we may be putting our hopes a little too high on the benefits to be attained by the consumer in the premium market when this gas is forthcoming. I think it is wise to give that advice. That there should be a proportion used in the bulk market is evident, if and when it is forthcoming. That will tend to balance the cost in the premium market. I do not think we are entitled to say that none should go into the bulk market any more than we should say that it should all go into the bulk market and none into the premium market.
  I am sure that my colleagues on the Select Committee will not resent my saying that we find ourselves in an invidious position and that we cannot be categorical in the views we express. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley has made a good case for the Amendment. It is not that we want to deny the Minister any reasonable amount of money, but it was obvious from his speech that a great deal of this expenditure is to be incurred in a situation which at the moment it still full of uncertainty and doubt. There is no reason why a further Bill should not come before the House if, as we hope, our doubts may be set on one side and natural gas is forthcoming in great quantities from the North Sea; but the idea of 4,000 m.c.f.d. is a long way off.
  There will be plenty of time for a further Bill to come before the House and then, if great quantities are forthcoming, I am certain that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will be ready to see that the money is available. But we would be imprudent to say now that
  576
  we are prepared to provide all that is asked for. I therefore strongly support the Amendment.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: My curiosity has been aroused by the wording of the Amendment and by the attitude of the Opposition to the White Paper on Fuel Policy. Although I enjoyed listening to the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when she talked about the wording of the White Paper, it was a little of a surprise to my hon. Friends and I, because we were under the impression that the Opposition was more enthusiastic about the terms of the White Paper than those of us on this side of the House. If there has been a change of 'heart among hon. Members opposite, some of my hon. Friends and I may perhaps believe that there is still some hope.
  We made it clear that we found the White Paper on fuel not acceptable. We advanced the argument, but received little sympathy, that the White Paper was inconclusive and did not represent a fuel policy because it left so many gaps and that we as miners could not accept it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), I cannot see that this debate merits an Amendment to the Motion. There may be a good argument that we should have a debate ranging over the whole question of fuels.
  It is a pleasure not to be debating this subject late at night. This is the first time I have taken part in a debate on this subject early in the day. In the last four or five debates on fuel I have spoken at seven or eight o'clock in the morning.
  I do not see any Scottish hon. Members present—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Or Scottish Ministers.
  Mr. Eadie: I am glad to see that one hon. Member from Scotland has now arrived. Reference has been made to the monumental and epoch-making speech of the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition should note that, in view of the activities of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the Amendment will not endear hon. Members opposite to the Scottish people. When they read the document and the Amendment it will

  577
  take the sting out of that so-called very important speech.
  There is an element of hypocrisy about the Opposition putting forward this Amendment. I say this in the nicest possible way, because the hon. Lady said such nice things about my right hon. Friend. We always like listening to her because, whether we agree with her or not, she tries to argue a case and she is a very pleasant personality, but she said some things which we could not accept. When she referred to vast sums of money being written off in the power industry, perhaps her memory was a little at fault.
  I always suspect when hon. Members opposite talk about capital being written off that they are referring to capital written off in the mining industry. If the mining industry had been treated in the way which some hon. Members wanted it to be treated on the basis of profitability, there would probably be about £2,000 million additionally in the finances of the National Coal Board. It was hon. Members opposite who in the early days, particularly up to 1956, treated the mining industry as a service industry and the question of profitability never entered into it. Coal as a fuel was sold to private industry below cost of production.
  I think I am entitled to remind the hon. Lady, who talked about wrong investment, that it was her party which was responsible for embarking on the gigantic magnox system in relation to nuclear power. That was a terrible mistake, and it ill behoves hon. Members opposite to talk about writing off vast capital sums as if they can escape responsibility. It may be that hon. Members on both sides of the House made mistakes, but hon. Members opposite were in power longer than we were.
  Time and time again in debates on power my hon. Friends and I have spoken about the gas industry and gas prices. I have incurred the wrath of various Ministers. I have said at Question Time and in speeches over the past 18 months that I have always believed that gas was over-sold. There have been vast advertisements about the bonanza of North Sea gas. It was said that this great bonanza would mean a substantial reduction in prices for the housewife and the consumer. The hon. Lady was quite right to say that it is time it was said
  578
  from this House that "there ain't going to be a great bonanza" for the consumers of this country.
  The consumers have been duped on this. They have been putting in gas appliances wholesale because of the mass advertising, in the hope and so-called knowledge that gas would be very much cheaper. I hope that at least from this debate, arising largely from what the hon. Lady said and what some of my hon. Friends will say, we shall be able to let the people know what will happen about gas prices.
  There are very serious repercussions. Local authorities, largely because of the mythology of cheaper gas prices, have been concentrating more and more on gas in their housing programmes. I receive quite a lot of mail, probably as much as any other hon. Member, sometimes running into 100 letters a week. I have been discovering from my mail that old age pensioners are having great difficulty in meeting heating costs where they have gas space-heated houses. I believe that the local authorities acted in good faith, believing that installing gas would give the consumer some advantage. I wonder whether the fact that gas is to be used has influenced Government Departments when giving their approval to certain housing designs. If it has, it is time somebody was told that gas will not be all that helpful on the question of costs. There is a need to have an overall look at the whole question of fuel and its costs.
  North Sea gas is a new-found source of energy that we should exploit. It is a source of wealth to the country, but for a long time I have wondered whether we may be destroying the chemical industry for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I am not sure that we are using North Sea gas properly and wisely. It seems to me nonsensical that in using this new-found wealth we should be writing off vast sums of capital spent on other industries, such as the mining industry, and creating unemployment problems. If the debate serves no other purpose than to highlight this, it will have performed a useful function.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) adds one more voice to the hon. Members who have

  579
  not been at all welcoming to the Bill. I think that it is the first borrowing powers Bill to be opposed on a reasoned Amendment, and therefore, the Government have real cause to think deeply about whether they are not making a mistake in bringing it forward at this time.
  The gas industry is asking for the biggest draft of capital it has ever had this year. It is bigger than that for which the electricity industry is asking. That in itself is something we should look at. How do we know whether this amount of investment is correct? We have no means of telling by judging the amounts of investment in relation to market forces. We cannot say that demand is so much because we do not know what it is, and there is no means of determining the correct pricing structure to reflect demand.
  Therefore, the Government must make arbitrary decisions, and they have decided that it will be 15 per cent. by 1975 of the national fuel take. So it seems to me that it is vitally important in assessing this huge amount of investment to be quite certain that the gas industry is selling its products at the correct price.
  In a nationalised industry it is very difficult to discover what the correct prices should be. The White Paper, Cmnd. 3437, sets out how to determine prices. The first statement I came across was
  "… the principle that nationalised industries' revenue should normally cover their accounting costs in full—including the service of capital and appropriate provision for its replacement."
  Judging the gas industry's proposals by that criterion, we find that the entire cost of conversion is being capitalised in this tranche of borrowing, £276 million. Why should the cost of conversion be a capital charge? It may well be argued that it should be. But it seems to me that it is something which the consumers should pay for, or at least pay the greater share. When one instals a telephone the cost is not met from the G.P.O.'s capital. One pays the cost of installing it. On the other hand, when one has a new gas installation it is to be provided free and paid for out of taxpayer's capital.
  A vast amount of early obsolescence is to take place in the existing gas-making
  580
  plant, which will be written off long before its life has come to an end. This is another large capital item which must be reflected in prices.
  Next, we read that the interest on all the heavy capital expenditure on constructing the network of pipes will be capitalised. This means that the true costs of installing the network will not be charged to expenses.
  Depreciation of this equipment is to be based not on a straight line method, not on a historic costs method and not even on a replacement costs method. A new method of depreciation is invented, based on the throughput of North Sea gas. Nothing will be paid out in depreciation until the gas starts to flow, and then only as the build-up starts to take place. Perhaps 10 years hence this new equipment will be depreciated. Here is another clever financial way of concealing the true costs of this vast expenditure on North Sea gas.
  The White Paper also says:
  "Two-part and differential pricing systems are also used to improve financial results without distorting the allocation of resources when there are important elements in costs which cannot easily be allocated to specific services or products …"
  That is very sensible. It says that one tries to keep the price as near as possible to what a service costs. Have we done this with North Sea gas? For instance, will it be as expensive to buy North Sea gas in Norfolk or in the East Riding as it will be in South Wales, or on the west coast of England? It must cost more to take the gas across, because pipelines have to be laid. I would like to know whether or not the extra cost will be charged. If this is to be evened out, it will mean that some consumers will have to pay more than they should and some will have to pay less than they should. In fact, a distortion is set up in the economic system, inducing more investment in pipelines and plant on the west coast than would otherwise have taken place; this is another part of the reason for this vast investment.
  What about the premium market consumers? What about power stations, factories, and steel works which will consume vast quantities of the gas? Will they be charged less per therm than domestic consumers, or not? It is clearly cheaper to supply a large industrial consumer than

  581
  domestic consumers. One must know what the answer to that question is.
  The next item on pricing concerns the price which will be paid to the producers of North Sea gas. One contract has recently been fixed at 2·87d. per therm, If this price is too low it will have a cumulative, lowering effect on the price at which North Sea gas is retailed and keep the price of gas too low throughout. It will also have the effect of tending to choke off further exploration because the profits on the exploration will be too low, while, at the same time stimulating too great a demand by having a very low price for the gas.
  I do not know whether this price is right or wrong, but the dangers in the Gas Council using its monopoly bargaining position to drive the price of gas down too low are immense. Not only will the supply be cut off by making it uneconomical to look for new gas but demand will be increased, because the gas will be so cheap that everybody will want to consume it, and that in its turn will bring a huge further investment in its train.
  Mr. Lubbock: Is not the hon. Gentleman disagreeing with his hon. Friend on the Front Bench who said that there would not be any price reductions arising from natural gas?
  Mr. Ridley: I am not at all disagreeing. I thought she made an absolutely admirable speech. I am trying to demonstrate that what is happening is that the gas industry is trying, by any means at its disposal, to get its prices down so that it can become more competitive. The result is that the price is far lower than it should be. Of course my hon. Friend is right. There may still not be much reduction in gas prices despite the fiddling about with depreciation and interest and the various other factors which I have mentioned. And they are leading to such a great demand that it will result in our having to provide this enormous sum of capital; it is subsidising natural gas to a very large extent.
  The gas industry is not the only industry which is doing this. The nuclear power industry, the coal industry and the electricity industry have all done it. There is enormous competition between the different forms of fuel, which results in the
  582
  pouring out of the taxpayers' money and does not make any sense at all.
  How will the Government control this enormous expenditure? The Government have laid down in their White Paper two forms of control for nationalised industries. One is to raise the test discount rate. They say that if the capital investment of the nationalised industry gets out of hand the remedy must be to raise the test discount rate. Yet the Government have no plans for doing so. The Minister made it quite clear the other day that he is not intending to do this. That is clearly something which will not be done. The second form of control stems from self-financing. The gas industry hitherto has been running at about 30 percent. self-financing, and the forecast for the next five years is that it will again be 30 percent. self-financing. The figure which is given in the gas booklet indicates that it will be 30 percent. self-financing in the future. In a Committee stage debate on the National Loan Fund Bill the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he thought that 30 percent. was inadequate, and yet we are told that the gas industry will only have to find 30 percent. of its new money in the future.
  The Government's main weapon to increase the self-financing ratio is the operation of the financial target. We learn with astonishment that the financial target for the gas industry has not been fixed. This enormous investment is taking place in a situation where there is no fixed financial target for the gas industry. This is of such fundamental importance that I must labour the point for one moment. If the target is fixed at 8 per cent., 10 per cent., or whatever percentage it is, this in its turn will affect the prices which the industry has to charge, which in turn will affect the amount of investment which is sucked in. It is foolish to present the House with a bill for £1,200 million without telling the House as a result of what rate of target this has been calculated. The first part of the equation is the rate of target, working from that to the prices which would result, and working from that to the amount of the investment. It is quite clear to me that the price of North Sea gas has not only not been published, but is not known, and has not been taken into account.

  583
  The Gas Council has used every conceivable means to reduce the price at which it can sell gas; by bludgeoning the oil companies, by writing off its depreciation 10 years hence, by failing to cover costs which should properly be covered in estimates and by getting all this done before the financial target has been fixed. The result is, of course, this huge capital sum which we are asked to find.
  Nobody would deny to the Gas Council the funds to develop North Sea gas, but the ultimate decision here is the speed at which gas is to be brought into the market. It can be brought in so that it is used up over 100 years, or so that it is used up over 10 years or anything in between. This is a decision which only the Government can take. The Government are supplying the capital, the Government own the industry and the Government alone can decide. In these circumstances, I cannot understand why the Government appear to be setting all the financial controls so that the gas is brought on to the market and used up with the greatest possible speed. Think of the damage that this will do to the existing fuel industries, coal, oil and electricity. Think of the waste of the existing gas-making plants based on oil and coal feed stocks. We have what seems to me to be a situation of no control at all.
  I would like to end by saying what are the consequences of this rash, headlong scramble for cheap State capital which is being indulged in by all the nationalised industries.
  The Post Office wants £2,000 million in the next few years, the Gas Council wants £2,400 million altogether, and electricity will have its share. We know the enormous sums of money which are being brought forward. As the hon. Member for Finchley said, this is beginning to have a serious effect on the national finances. For many years we have assumed that the money which we voted so happily for borrowing powers Bills for nationalised industries is in fact borrowed by the Government on the market, but it is not. I have figures here which show that over the last eight years the Government by all their borrowing efforts on the market have only raised £870 million net, whereas they have lent £7,453 million.
  584
  They have applied taxation surpluses, which amount to £3,153 million. That leaves uncovered a total for the last eight years of £3,400 million. This is uncovered by borrowings at home, by taxation or by any conceivable means of financing. It has been either borrowed from abroad or printed.
  The need now is not only to look at the Government's current expenditure on revenue account but to supervise their capital programmes as if they were every bit as important as prescription charges or any other item of revenue. It is totally irresponsible to have tremendous battles over £5 million here or £20 million there, and then allow sums of money like that proposed at present to go through unchallenged.
  I believe that the Gas Council has based its plans on too rosy a prospectus and too fast a rate of development. The least that we in this House can do, which is all that we are asking in the Amendment, is to ensure that it comes back very much sooner asking us to give it another tranche of capital against a progress report. At that time, I hope that all the factors dealing with prices, the target, the rate of return and the rate at which gas reserves are being used up will be made known. Without that knowledge, it is impossible to make a proper assessment of the proposition. To my mind, it is certainly one about which the House should be very careful before giving its agreement.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: I want to echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who said what a great pleasure it was to be debating some part of our fuel policy on the day shift. On this occasion, we are ready on the afternoon shift. It is a pleasant change from the last occasion on which we discussed the coal industry, which we did in the early hours of the morning in a debate initiated by an Opposition Member on the Consolidated Fund Bill dealing with all aspects of the White Paper. It is very pleasant to be doing this on the afternoon shift.
  I need hardly remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker's and Mr. Deputy Speaker's brains were just as alert on that occasion in the small hours of the morning as they are in the day, and they

  585
  were quick to bring hon. Members to order and remind them of the need for short speeches. Without any reminder, I intend to comply with their unuttered request today.
  The hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) usually makes the most charming speeches and, in addition, they are always very able and well documented. She does her homework, and her remarks are always worthy of attention. In her speech today, she referred to the lack of co-ordination of fuel policy. I think that the present policy could be summed up by saying that each section of the gas, electricity and coal industries is, most of the time, engaged in flogging it own briefs. That is what happens and the effect of the resulting lack of coordination is a demonstrable and shocking waste of public money.
  The Opposition Amendment refers to the fact that we have not debated the White Paper in its entirety. However, hon. Members will recall that, on the Thursday preceding devaluation, it was announced that we should be debating the White Paper on one day during the following week and would take the money Bill which flowed from the consequences of the Government's fuel policy on the following day. In the end, what happened was that we condensed the debate into one day and had about 1½ hours on it. But it is not quite true that we have never debated the White Paper. What he have done is to debate it piecemeal when borrowing powers Bills and Orders have come before us.
  Most hon. Members accept, as the Amendment says, that there is a great need all the time to scrutinise public expenditure carefully. I am sure that no one would disagree with that proposition.
  I have said already that we have debated the White Paper piecemeal, and I have found it to be a most frustrating experience. Although one gets the pleasure of being able to point out the contradictions and inconsistencies in the White Paper, whenever we debate a borrowing powers Bill or Order, as a miner's Member of Parliament, I am usually reminded that the real sufferer from this lack of co-ordination amongst the elements of our fuel energy distributors and producers is the mining industry. I believe that that will be demonstrated more and more.
  586
  Like the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), I am a member of the Nationalised Industries Committee, and I agree with him when he says that members of the Committee should guard against making statements which indicate a closed mind on the impact of natural gas on the economy. If one commits oneself to a certain line of thought, one cannot be said to be objective.
  Even observing that wise advice, it must be said that members of the Select Committee have had presented to them by the various nationalised bodies papers which to my mind have created considerable doubt about the optimistic forecasts which have been made for the absorption of natural gas into the economy. We are left with the impression that tremendous problems will be created and that the forecasts of the Gas Council have been outrageously optimistic.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said that the public has been "conned" about cheap natural gas. That is undoubtedly true. We all remember how the first forecasts of the price of natural gas produced headlines in the London evening newspapers predicting slashing reductions by the early 'seventies. We now know that that is not to be the case and that, instead, there have been massive increases.
  As a miners' Member of Parliament, I am strengthened by those optimistic forecasts in my belief that what we need is a completely co-ordinated fuel policy which will have as its objective the best possible utilisation of natural resources, including natural gas, although some of the arguments advanced about it resulting in a saving in foreign currencies are found to be a little specious when they are examined A good deal of the capital invested in natural gas comes from abroad, unlike the investment in our coal industry in which the capital has been invested already and, if we had a wise policy, we could recoup.
  This borrowing powers Bill demonstrates more than anything the futility of making outrageously optimistic forecasts and the need for a proper co-ordinated fuel policy which will allocate a proper place to every industry within these sectors. The Government should, for instance, have asked the mining industry

  587
  —which will be affected by the advent of natural gas—" How much coal can you supply at this indicated price?" It is suggested that the National Coal Board could not deliver the goods but I say that this would not be catastrophic because substitutes for coal are easily available for power stations. But when other industries do not fulfil their optimistic forecasts, their fuel cannot be replaced, in nuclear power stations, for instance, by cheap coal. The result of the present policy for fuel is catastrophic for the coal industry.
  This Bill and most of the debates about fuel so far have indicated the need for a properly planned and co-ordinated fuel policy in place of the present system, in which every Department flogs its own brief and in which the real sufferer is the industry in which I have been proud to work. That industry will not suffer so badly if we have a proper fuel policy.
  6.21 p.m.
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: The sums contained in this Bill are astronomical. The borrowing of the gas industry up to 31st March last was £1,063 million. Since then, of course, further sums have been committed. The statutory limit on the borrowing powers of the industry is at present £1,200 million. The Minister has explained that the Bill will carry the limit of borrowing powers to £1,600 million and, subject to Statutory Instrument thereafter by easy stages, cruising along—I suppose he meant to imitate the Chancellor of the Exchequer's "easy as she goes"—up to £2,400 million.
  The right hon. Gentleman made his speech, listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and left the Chamber. He has heard no more of the debate. It will be interesting to see whether he returns to hear any part of my speech. I doubt whether he will. I castigate him publicly for his poor manners, coupled with the fact that he refused to give way to me in the middle of his speech when I wanted to ask him a perfectly reasonable and innocent question having regard to the astronomical sums of money entailed in the Bill.
  I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman why he considers that it is appropriate, in contemporary circumstances, to
  588
  run for the next two years—that is, raising the limit of the borrowing powers from £1,200 million to £1,600 million— without resort to Parliamentary scrutiny. What I should require is scrutiny after one year. I wanted him to deal with that in his speech. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary may be authorised to deal with it when he replies to the debate. But, as £200 million is involved, it is slightly more than the brief of a Parliamentary Secretary. It might be considered the brief of the Minister responsible.
  However, this again emphasises the contempt of senior Ministers for the genuine anxiety of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself about the pace and size of the expenditure of public funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, in her characteristically charming fashion, talked, I thought a little casually, of the taxpayers' interests. Let us be perfectly certain about this. No part of the money under this Bill is being obtained from elsewhere than the taxpayers' pockets.
  Mr. Ridley: And abroad.
  Sir G. Nabarro: No part of it is being obtained by resort to traditional channels of finance in this country. There might be some question of borrowing abroad, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ciren-cester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) prompts me—and I am grateful to him —but all the money which is borrowed in the United Kingdom will come from the taxpayers and the surpluses budgeted for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer once a year. It is below the line expenditure. Yet the Minister talks casually of not having to resort to Parliamentary scrutiny for two years, whereas I require one year.
  Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman included in his peroration a pained expression of surprise that the Opposition were moving a qualified and reasoned Amendment against the Bill, he could not have known of my forthcoming statement. I wish he were here to listen to it. It is that, in the next few days, I shall move to reduce the £1,600 million in the Bill to £1,400 million and, in Committee, a long debate will ensue. There is no question of catching Mr. Speaker's eye in Committee. I shall speak half a dozen times—and I shall refer to the coal industry as well.

  589
  The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) referred to the midnight debate on the coal industry. I initiated it. It was not on the Consolidated Fund but on the Coal Industry Act, 1967, because the only opportunity we get these days, with the indigestion of Government business and having regard to the huge sums of money invested in the nationalised industries and the chronic strain on the country's financial resources, is when I move Amendments to borrowing powers Bills.
  Mr. David Webster: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, when he is doing what he proposes, he should be careful to ensure that he is not trimmed by the Guillotine?
  Sir G. Nabarro: It might be, but I hope not. These things have happened before and will happen again. I think that, during the Committee stage of the Bill, my hon. Friends might consider joining me in demanding a one-year scrutiny of the borrowing powers for the gas industry.
  My second point is simply this: I wrote to the leaders of my party a few days ago, saying that the Tory Party as a matter of principle, never votes against the borrowing powers of nationalised industries on Second Reading. It has always taken the view that the nationalised industries have to be financed and that it is therefore appropriate periodically to have a borrowing powers Bill, since these industries must not be denied funds. I told them that, if they did not table a reasoned and qualified Amendment, I would, even if I were a minority of one, divide the House at 10 o'clock tonight.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman could not divide the House if he were a minority of one.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I can and will divide the House even if I am a minority of one.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman must have tellers.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I always have tellers. There are always financial purists who will come with me on Measures of this kind because, like me, they are appalled that, at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer argues that he cannot afford £500,000 to abate, for example, the Purchase Tax on greetings cards, or
  590
  £4 million to reduce the marginal top level of taxation on incomes from 18s. 3d. in the £ to 15s. in order to give financial incentives to the nation's best brains. Yet he comes to the House and casually demands, through, his instrument and tool, the Minister of Power, £400 million for North Sea gas, a major part of which is not yet justified.
  I sneered at the Chancellor on 14th May. It was a calculated sneer, always appropriate when there is humbug and hypocrisy from the Treasury Bench. I said:
  "Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would be unpatriotic to observe that many of us think that the balance of payments position is steadily deteriorating and not improving?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1968; Vol. 764, c. 1020.]
  The critical financial condition of our country is due, in the main, to gross over-expenditure on domestic financial needs. The nationalised industries have heavy responsibility to bear in this important regard. "Squandermania" is my single word for it. I will justify to the House why I am using these stern terms about the proposed increase in borrowing powers, from £1,200 million to £1,600 million.
  About 80 per cent. of this money is required for capital equipment by the gas industry for the purpose of financing the intake of North Sea gas. It is said that 2,000 million cubic feet per diem is required by 1971 and that 4,000 million cubic feet per diem is required by 1975. The financial sinews to generate that rate of introduction of natural gas from subterranean North Sea sources into this country are those delineated in the Bill—so says the Gas Council. How much of this gas has been discovered so far? Neither the Minister nor my hon. Friend—no speaker in this debate—has yet said how much of this gas out of the 4,000 million cubic feet estimated to be brought in in 1975 has so far been discovered, contracted for and the price agreed.
  Mr. Lubbock: Sir Henry Jones has.
  Sir G. Nabarro: He has not. I can give the figure now, obtained from private sources. The only agreement as to price has been made in the Philips agreement at 2·87 pence per therm. That covers 325,000 cubic feet per diem.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will address the Chair.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am, Sir. I am gyrating—that is my trouble. I get stiff if I look straight in front of me all the time. The figure of 325,000 cubic feet per diem is the sole subject of price agreement to date. That is, 325,000 out of 4,000 million cubic feet per diem. If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is as good at arithmetic as I think he is, and he puts 325,000 cubic feet per diem over 4,000 million cubic feet per diem, he will find that the first figure is about 8 per cent. of the second figure—roughly one-twelfth.
  What has so far been negotiated is a contract price for one-twelfth of the total of the North Sea subterranean gas which we propose to bring in by 1975. We are now intending to legislate to lend the Gas Board all the money it requires to finance the position as it will exist in 1975, notwithstanding that a price contract has been made for only one-twelfth of the total. Will the price contract be made for the other eleven-twelfths? I doubt it. There were a large number of oil companies negotiating with the Gas Council as to the price for North Sea gas.
  We all know the dismal course of these negotiations. For almost three years I have been asking Parliamentary Questions about it. Only one agreement has so far been made and that is in respect of only 8 per cent. of the need six years ahead. So low is the price that the other oil companies are now scared off. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury touched on this matter. He said, "Yes, the price is sufficient for existing operations, but what the oil companies have to have is a price that not only covers existing operations, but that also covers the very heavy cost of exploration for future development in order to cover the remaining eleven-twelfths of the requirement by 1975."
  I am not prepared to vote money forward for a period of six years on that scale, in view of the huge demands made on capital in this country—notably upon public capital—when what we ought to do is to peer one year ahead only, vote £200 million of additional borrowing powers and review the position one year hence to ascertain then whether
  592
  additional contracts have been made with the other oil companies on a mutually acceptable basis. They may well not have been made 12 months from now. I shall therefore, in Committee, seek to reduce the figure in the Bill of £1,600 million to £1,400 million, which will seem to me a reasonable cumulative figure to last until mid-1969.
  Before leaving the subject of the price of North Sea gas I would say that the figure of 2·87 pence per therm is un-realistically low and will scare off future exploitation. The oil companies are already threatening to decamp elsewhere, in Europe and North America, where they can obtain a better return on the huge sums of capital involved in operating their large drilling rigs. We should be unwise to cast away the first piece of mineral luck we have had in this country for many years.
  I want to turn for a moment to the speech of the hon. Member for Ince. He talked about the impact on the coalmining industry. If this Bill goes through it will put a large additional number of coal miners out of work.
  Mr. Freeson Mr. Freeson indicated dissent.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding his head in dissent. I will give him the figures. I never make statements of that kind without having all the figures in my armoury, available to support me.
  In 1966–67 the gas industry used 16 million tons of coal. In 1967–68 the industry will be using 13 million tons of coal. By 1975, if the whole of the gas industry rests, as the White Paper says it will rest, on natural gas from the North Sea and elsewhere—because there are finds under the land, in Yorkshire—then no coal will be used, and therefore the whole of the 16 million tons used in 1966–67, the 13 million tons used in 1967–68 will not be required. How can that do anything other than to put coal miners out of work? They may find alternative employment but they will not be employed as coal miners.
  Mr. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the two things. This process of not using coal in the carbonisation plants would have gone on irrespective of the introduction of natural gas. That is why I said that the impact of natural

  593
  gas would only be felt by the Coal Board from 1971–72 onwards. The process of not using coal for carbonisation had already been accelerated and was gaining ground fast. Natural gas has nothing to do with the forecast contained in the White Paper.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is not basing his argument on facts. If one does not use natural gas for providing gas suppliers and does not use gas from coal carbonisation, that is, for manufacturing town gas, the only alternative is gas from oil and from methane.
  There are only those three supplies, other than water gas which is relatively very small. But the fact is that gas from oil consumed 3·5 million tons of oil in 1966–67 and 4·7 million tons of oil in 1966–68, compared with 16 million tons of coal in the first of those years and 13 million tons in the second of those years; and were it not for natural gas the gas industry would undoubtedly have used slightly more oil. It would also have used, I suppose, slightly more methane. I remember when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposed the introduction of methane by all the means at their disposal. But, very largely, the gas industry would carbonise coal had it not been for natural gas, and they would have used 8 million, 10 million or 12 million tons of coal and that market would have gone on for a long time. As it is, with natural gas supplying the entire field by 1975, there will be no further coal supplies required.
  I believe, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince and all his colleagues who are said to represent the mining lobby here may as well make up their mind that coal supplied for the gas industry will be entirely out within six years from now.
  Mr. McGuire: Not because of this.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Largely because of this.
  This is a financial Bill. I shall reserve my detailed arguments in connection with North Sea gas for the Committee stage. I am sorry the Minister has not returned at any stage during my speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wise man."]. The hon. Gentleman may consider it wise for his Ministerial colleagues to treat the
  594
  Opposition in this cavalier fashion but at least I am informed on fuel and power matters—at least as well informed as the hon. Gentleman and I expect to be listened to by somebody of rather greater importance than the Parliamentary Secretary. That is, of course, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker. But I shall canvass these arguments in greater depth and greater detail when we come to the Committee stage.
  I want to add a further word about foreign borrowing. What a disgraceful state of affairs for one of the sacred cows of the Labour Party, the nationalised gas industry—for it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who nationalised coal, gas and electricity which were to be the great towers, the visual evidence of a Socialist Britain, the commanding heights of the economy, with British money, British capital resting on the accumulation of British savings which were to promote dynamic industries in the 20th and 21st centuries; and here is the Labour Party bringing to the House of Commons a Bill to cause one of their nationalised fuel industries to borrow money from the gnomes of Zurich whom they despise.
  What are they using as a precedent? They say, "But the nationalised Air Corporations have authority to borrow money abroad". I would remind you, Sir, that the national Air Corporations are in international competition with scores of foreign airlines. They earn large sums in foreign exchange. But here is an indigenous British industry not selling £1-worth of its products abroad unless it exports occasionally a couple of bottles of aspirin, a little naphtha, some tar or some other by-product of a gas works. It makes no contribution to the export trade whatever. It has this huge call on capital and it now proposes to borrow it abroad. That represents a direct drain on our balance of payments as to capital and as to repayment, a direct drain; and it puts the gas industry in mortgage to the gnomes of Zurich, because the foreigner will require guarantees. He is not going to put money into the Gas Council. Do not believe it! He does not like the Gas Council very much, if he has ever heard of it at all. It is nothing to laugh at. The foreigner does not like the Gas Council but in any event the Gas Council could not borrow this money without a Bank of England

  595
  guarantee, without a Treasury guarantee for the loans.
  I regard this as a wholly misguided exercise. What the Treasury ought to be doing is stimulating personal savings in this country, which as you know well, Mr. Speaker, are the proper base for capital accumulation and public finance —not going overseas for money and mortgaging British industry to the foreigner. There are three Clauses in this Bill dealing with this. In terms of verbiage it is most of the Bill. These are Clauses 2, 3 and 4. Within a few days there will be on the Order Paper of the House my Motion to delete all three Clauses. I shall seek to reduce the money under Clause 1 and to remove Clauses 2, 3 and 4. I might let Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 through, those being relatively inoccuous; and my party will come with me, I feel confident.
  Mr. J. McCann (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): A nice change.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Did somebody say "A nice change"? We have heard a word from a Whip. No, not a nice change. I lead my party for if I had set down a reasoned Amendment to deal with it it would have gone down in my name and my party would have voted with me.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Hear, hear.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Certainly, I would have had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).
  Mr. J. T Price: The tail wagging the dog
  Sir G. Nabarro: It may be the tail wagging the dog, but what a tail! Look at it! I am always delighted that my party comes with me and eventually recognises the wisdom of my ways. I support the reasoned Amendment. I shall walk briskly through the Lobby tonight glad of heart that I am doing the right thing and that I am rejecting utterly the spurious and slightly ridiculous appeal of the Minister who in the peroration of his speech thought it appropriate to try to appeal to me not to vote on the reasoned Amendment to his Bill.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: The House is well aware that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) enjoys the use of flamboyant and extravagant language. The House makes due allowance for his exaggerated statements. We are often entertained by him, but we are rarely enlightened by what he says. In the few minutes during which I wish to detain the House, I want to put forward a few ideas of my own in perhaps more temperate language. If ever the House were televised, which I should deplore, I should have no wish to compete with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South as a substitute for "Coronation Street".
  This is an important debate and I do not approach it in any frivolous fashion. Any debate which deals with the granting of borrowing powers of £1,200 million is important. I listened with great interest and close attention to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). My right hon. Friend delivered his Departmental brief with his usual Pickwickian charm The hon. Lady responded in similar terms, but the use of the word "Pickwickian" would be a misnomer in her case. I should have to use another synonym of one of Dickens's characters, but I hesitate to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I do not wish to be critical. I want to approach the debate in a non-polemical way. However, the hon. Lady made some telling criticisms which we must answer.
  I am not sure that on these occasions, when we are dealing with a comparatively narrow Bill consisting of five pages which involves the issue of Parliamentary authority for vast borrowing of public money, we can resist the temptation to widen the scope of the debate to a general debate on fuel policy. This may be a good thing. It would be out of order at any other stage of the Bill.
  The hon. Lady drew attention to a number of things which have been engaging our attention in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which I am a member. Since we are dealing with the Bill in the absence of the report which will ultimately emerge from our deliberations, I am not sure

  597
  that we are doing so in the right context. I should have preferred, if it had been consistent with Parliamentary arrangements, that the Bill could have followed the issue of the valuable report which we hope to submit to the House in the next few months. Nevertheless, I make no complaint.
  I notice that my right hon. Friend the Minister has returned to the Chamber, and that his presence is being noted with great approval by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South just leaving us. I was certain that when I made that remark he would leave the Chamber. Now he is returning. He is quite able to "deliver the goods" and to take what comes from this side of the House because he is a good Parliamentarian. I hope that I am in order, Mr. Speaker, and that you are not getting apprehensive about anything I am saying.
  I want to return to the main issue which concerns some of us in the light of the Bill and the arguments advanced by the Minister in supporting it. First, I wish to reply to what was said so eloquently and charmingly by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley. We are not dealing with a vote of supply for £1,200 million. We are merely dealing with borrowing powers which extend the existing borrowing powers of the Gas Council by £400 million in the first place and a further £800 million at a subsequent date, subject always to the Minister's approval. Therefore, it is not correct for the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South to say that there is no Parliamentary control. There certainly is, because when this money is deployed and granted in various instalments for the development of North Sea gas and the purposes of the Gas Council it is done under strict Parliamentary control as it must be submitted in a vote of Supply.
  Mr. Ray Mawby Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman must be remarkably ignorant of the procedure of this House if he thinks that any Minister can get money below the line unless he has a vote of Supply. The hon. Lady, who is well versed in these matters, is better informed than the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Price: Certainly.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I must be very careful in asking for consent to an intervention. It is perfectly true that the money is covered by a vote of Supply at the time of the Budget annually, but there is no opportunity to debate it, as we know to our cost year after year, and the arrogance of Ministers in refusing us these opportunities is a cause for real concern.
  Mr. Price: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view. I should be out of order if I allowed myself to be deflected into a debate on Parliamentary procedure. But since the hon. Gentleman may think, in the absence of a reply, that I am unable to answer his question, let me remind him that when votes of Supply are under discussion they are discussed, as a rule, on Opposition days and that the votes chosen are a matter of consultation between the Front Benches through the usual channels. It is open to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to have any vote discussed on a Supply day, which is an Opposition day. That disposes of that.
  Mr. Peter Emery Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton) rose—
  Mr. Price: Just a moment. I shall be on my feet longer than I wish if I am subjected to too many interruptions. I do not wish to be discourteous to anybody.
  I listened to the Minister's good natured speech and the brief prepared so meticulously in his Department. But, as I listened to him, I got the impression that if the backroom boys of the gas industry or the boffins or the people who decide the policy and programme of the gas industry are as successful in selling their product in future years as they were in selling hook, line and sinker their ideas to him, they will be very successful indeed. I say that with a sense of responsibility. It is not always desirable that the Minister should swallow the departmental interests of any industry or nationalised industry, however important it is, because obviously they are dealing with their own function in society. They are not concerned with the repercussions of their activities on the other nationalised industries or sectors of other industrial operations, including private industry.

  599
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) used the phrase "flogging their own brief". Those of us with any experience of the House are familiar with low pressure groups can flog their own brief. They do it very successfully, and unless Ministers are extremely sceptical and alert about the weight of evidence submitted to them in support of ideas, they can be, and often are, "taken for a ride".
  I am not a miners' representative in this House, although I represent part of the County Palatine of Lancashire where there is a great mining tradition. I am not making a constituency speech. However, some of my hon. Friends, who have a more direct interest in the coal-mining industry, have for years pleaded for a proper Government policy dealing with the nationalised industries and our fuel policy. We have never got it. We are complaining today that this is a further piece of evidence that we are not likely to get it. Whatever this country's political leadership might be when we get down to considering how our natural resources shall be applied and our reliance on other countries to supply raw materials, the better pleased I shall be. I see no evidence of this happening, because we have the bill submitted by the Gas Council being met.
  I have listened to all kinds of expert opinion on these matters in other connections, as have other right hon. and hon. Members. When we look at the evidence on which these massive projections about the likely demand for a particular product are made—gas, in this instance—and the capital needed to finance its distribution, there is little to fortify us in any firm conviction that the demand is reasonable.
  The hon. Member for Finchley addressed us at considerable length. She spoke of the uncertainty which existed about the known reserves of gas and how long they will last. The best estimate I have heard from any reliable sources on present geological discoveries is that it cannot be said with certainty that they will last for more than 15 years. The engineers hope that further exploration will reveal further treasures. This is the atmosphere in which geologists, particularly oil men and gas men, always work.
  600
  If one goes to an oil rig in the Middle East, as I have, one will find an oil rig man from Texas on his rig at 6 o'clock in the morning, before the sun gets high. He will probably say, "If you come down to my rig in two hours I shall have something interesting to show you." He has probably been drilling down to 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 ft., or even greater depths, for the past three months and brought up only muck and slurry. However, he is always hoping that the next hour or the next week he will strike oil. No one can say with certainty.
  It appals me to hear people being polemical: condemning something because it is nationalised, but praising it if it is private enterprise. This kind of talk does not mean anything to me. If there has to be large-scale enterprise it must be a mixture of both public and private activity. Drilling for gas in the North Sea is carried out mainly by private enterprise oil companies which have the know-how and expertise to tackle the job. They do not know whether their investment will pay off. They invest hundreds of millions of pounds—maybe thousands of millions of pounds—in the hope that they will strike gas or oil and make a rich return to their shareholders. The hon. Member for Finchley did not say that such companies were misguided, in putting private capital at risk in trying to find oil in the North Sea. They are following the traditional pattern of enterprising people. My right hon. Friend, therefore, should not be criticised too strongly. I am criticising him, but, I hope, carefully and fairly. He should not be criticised from a party polemical point of view for giving consent to public money being placed at the disposal of the Gas Council for the purpose of developing the gas industry of this country. It is not a fair, logical or valid argument. I will not labour that point any longer.
  How are we to deal with this great bonanza, as it has been called, in the North Sea? When these discoveries were made a couple of years or more ago, they were big news. They filled all the headlines of the newspapers and gave great optimistic feeling to many people who were rather doleful about our position as a nation because of our lack of natural resources, apart from coal, which was in great trouble. Everybody got the impression that here was something on our doorstep that only needed engineering

  601
  skill to hiring it into our homes and factories and we should have much cheaper energy than we ever had before. Some of my hon. Friends have already addressed the House and pointed out that this bonanza is largely an illusion, because, unless it is related to a real economic advantage to the consumer, we are merely replacing the activity of winning coal from the soil, of which we have 200 years' known supplies under our feet, by another.
  This country, with its 52 million people, has not inexhaustible demands on energy. I am familiar with the papers put before us by economic wizards. I discount a lot of them, because most of the economic opinion given to the House during my 18 years has been a lot of nonsense and has been proved wrong. I say this seriously. When the Tories were in power they were led up the garden path with all kinds of false witness, false information and false prophecy. We are in the same boat. I ask my right hon. Friend and other members of the Government to be more sceptical in swallowing, hook, line and sinker, the sort of stuff that is poured out from Ministries and their uninspired experts. We must have professional opinion, but so often it: has been proved wrong.
  This very considerable and exciting find of gas in the North Sea could have been, and may still be, of great advantage to this country if it continues to flow at the prophesied rate. But if it merely means that it is to substitute the already highly developed elecricity industry and that it will close a great many more mines, in the long run, when the total sums are made up in the national accounts, there may not be any net advantage.
  I am not saying anything out of school, because I have taken part in discussions on these matters upstairs and elsewhere. The opinion of the National Coal Board, which has had its own advisers and professional experts at work on the problem, is that the present discoveries of gas, once they are piped through to the point of consumption, will represent the closing of another 28 coal mines These may be extemporary guesses or rough estimates, but they are an attempt to show that this great discovery in the North Sea is not an unmixed blessing to the coal industry which
  602
  had already suffered grievous contraction with the closing down of many of our mining communities. The National Coal Board has already taken steps to anticipate this situation. It has taken a large block of financial responsibility for the oil drills in the North Sea. It is part of a consortium working on the exploitation of North Sea gas. They say that this may be a countervailing factor so far as the accountability of the Government for the coal industry is concerned.
  Another thing which rather astonished me when I became aware of it quite recently—and the hon. Lady made passing reference to this in her speech, I think—is that North Sea gas has meant that the Government have had to lay down lines of policy as to how it shall be distributed in the country and through what channels. It was decided some time ago that there should be only one purchaser of North Sea gas, the Gas Council, and that it should distribute it through its area boards, through the machinery already in existence. The Gas Council has been at work, because it has come to the conclusion, probably fairly on the evidence available, that North Sea gas is going to take the place completely of towns gas so far as domestic consumption is concerned. This means that all the apparatus, all the gas works, many of them modern because they have recently had very large capital sums put into them to bring them up to date, are going to be obsolescent within the next few years, because they would be quite useless for the exploitation of North Sea gas.
  The Gas Council estimates that the capital value of the assets in the gas industry which are going to be written off within a period, I am told, of 10 years, is something of the order of £300 million. In other words, the gas consumer, the domestic consumer, has got to pay over a period of 10 years at the rate of £30 million a year for the one item of writing-off the existing assets of the gas industry. This is a very serious matter and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Ince and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said so critically that this idea that had been peddled to the public that they are going to get cheap gas is a lot of nonsense because the consumer is going to be called upon to pay for the writing-off of the existing

  603
  assets and because there will be so many other repercussions.
  This does not mean that I am so stupid, so reactionary or so blind to the development of these things that I think we should not develop North Sea gas. It is one of the facts of history that these discoveries have been made and we must deal with them to the best advantage of the country.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman will recall that Sir Henry Jones said in answer to a question in the Select Committee on 10th April that this £300 million which is to be writen off is largely attributable to the oil reforming plants, which make gas from oil. Therefore, I do not see that this is going to be any skin off the nose of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire).
  Mr. Price: I should have liked to say something more about that, but I may have an opportunity of saying it in greater detail on a future occasion.
  I want to deal with the capitalisation involved in the future development of the gas industry. This has been considered in isolation from its repercussions on the electricity industry. If the Gas Council and its advisers are successful in their endeavours during the next few years, as they prophesy, this can only mean a reduced demand for electricity and oil, and in the long run the consumer will have to pay for this because they come in the budget below the line.
  I should like some reassurance on this point when my right hon. Friend, or whoever is going to reply to the debate, does so. There are many lay people in this country, as my right hon. Friend knows, who are very critical about the increased charges for gas and electricity and all the other power charges which fall on domestic consumers. They want to know as regards the gas industry—and I isolate it from the other industries because we are dealing with a gas Bill tonight—how much capital the industry is supposed to generate from current revenue. A good deal of the increase in gas charges arises from the fact that the previous Administration in the period when they were in office—and I do not want to debate the merits of what they did—required the electricity and gas industries to generate
  604
  a considerable part of their capital requirements from the current revenue. I believe that at the present time the gas industry is required to use about 12 per cent. of its current revenue for capital requirements. This is a very high proportion and is reflected in the domestic price of gas. It is even higher in the electricity industry, and it is rising all the time.
  I want to be told, as a matter of Government policy, if not tonight then on some future occasion, where the country is going with this process. If an industry has to charge the domestic consumer an ever-increasing share of the cost of its product—whether it be gas, electricity or anything else—to finance the future capital requirements of that industry, to pay for assets which may be in existence 40 or 50 years hence in many cases, this is unfair to the domestic consumer. It is quite unsound, and I am glad that I have the nodded assent of an hon. Gentleman opposite who understands these matters.
  Mr. Ridley: What does the hon. Gentleman think would be a fair proportion of new capital for an industry to find from itself? At present, the gas industry is finding 30 per cent. from these new resources. Would he think like the Parliamentary Secretary, that it ought to be 40 per cent., or even 50 per cent.?
  Mr. Price: I would not like to guess: there is far too much guesswork in this place. It is like a man who is giving evidence after witnessing a road accident in which somebody has been killed or injured, and is asked by learned counsel what speed he thinks the vehicle was doing. He says, "I do not know, about 60 miles an hour". He has no idea, of course, and I have no idea what would be required, but it ought not to be an inordinately high part of the revenue. When the hon. Gentleman talks about 30 per cent. he is taking a composite figure. At the present moment they take roughly 12 per cent. out of current revenue and the rest is their own borrowing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South is wrong in saying that the gas industry does not borrow except from the Government, and he had better look up his authorities. The industry can borrow, just as the private gas companies such as the North Thames Gas Board could—much of which money

  605
  is still being paid back and serviced. However, I will not go into that tonight.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I notice that.
  Mr. Price: Well, I do not want to sit down having made no more contribution to this debate than a lot of bombast.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Would the hon. Gentleman like to know what the exact figures are? British gas stock £286 million, Government finance £763 million, temporary borrowings £14 million, making £1,063 million up to 31st March last, all of which I quoted in the course of my speech.
  Mr. Price: I will consider those figures when I read them in HANSARD tomorrow.
  I want to wind up this speech, which has been much longer than I thought it would be, with another serious plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister. He is not the first Minister to whom I have made it, either. I made a similar plea some time ago to one of his predecessors about the financing of nationalised industries. I think that the present system is all wrong. I have always supported nationalised industries in principle, for my own reasons, because with certain reservations I believe in nationalisation: so long as it is efficient, I believe in it. I am not a crude nationaliser but I believe in large-scale nationalisation and not in a polemical sense. It is right for the State to control the basic industries. If we had not done so, there would be no coal industry today, since it was bankrupt when we took it over—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, we cannot debate nationalisation on the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Price: Perhaps I have been led astray, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, who is always doing that kind of thing. I was going to talk about the railways, but that would probably be out of order as well, so I will get back on the rails.
  We are almost the only country which finances its nationalised industries in this way. Some of the polemical speeches of hon. Members opposite suggest that we are the only country with nationalised industries. Bless my soul, Italy, for example, had them long before us. They were the first, and Germany and France
  606
  —all these are advanced countries—also have large sectors of their economies within public control. They have ceased to debate nationalisation in Italy. The Italian Parliament does not have this sort of debate—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must listen to what I say. We cannot debate nationalisation; we are talking about its financing under the Bill.
  Mr. Price: I will try to comply, Mr. Speaker, but I am not debating nationalisation: I am debating the finances of nationalised industries, which is very pertinent to the Bill—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is exactly what I said.
  Mr. Price: As I have said to previous Ministers, it is about time that my right hon. Friend considered the processes of our international competitors. For instance, in Italy, there are great financial, trading and commercial institutions. One is the I.R.I., the Istituto per la Ricostru-zione Industriale. The other is the E.M.I., which deals with the power industries, in particular fuel and oil, since they have no coal. These organisations, under the aegis of the Italian Government, are largely financed from the market. They control large sectors of the Italian economy so successfully that Italy has been described by leading economists as the miracle of Europe, having pulled itself up off its knees from complete bankruptcy at the end of the war to become a leading operator in world affairs and export markets.
  I might incur the further displeasure of the Chair if I said any more on this aspect, but I should be much happier if the Government could find the flexibility to break away from the crude idea of requiring these vast sums of public money from below the line in the Budget. There is much to be said for raising this money from the market under proper safeguards. There is no difficulty in Italy for the nationalised industries. If hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not share my political views—they are just polemicists and ideologists—[An HON. MEMBER: "YOU are."] I am not ideological about this. I try to decide on observation and evidence—[Interruption.] I cannot read that paper and I cannot see too far tonight. If I have too many interruptions, I shall speak for a

  607
  long time, so long as I am in order, but I want to conclude.
  The Italians have no difficulty raising money on the market. These State organisations, the E.N.I. and the I.R.I., have weekly meetings with the Minister of Economic Affairs, who tells them the priorities for capital. They might ask, just as our Gas Council is asking for £1,200 million in this Bill, for perhaps £500 million. After a little haggling, the Minister may dig his heels in at £300 million, and say that the Government will guarantee 10 per cent. and that they should go to Lombardy's, to the market, to raise the £270 million from private sources.
  Every time I.R.I. bonds are issued on the market, they are over-subscribed in hours. Private funds are poured like water into their nationalised industries. I want to see us, not do exactly the same, but at least approach the matter with an open mind and not continue by this rigid method—
  Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman saying this in connection with Clause 2, about borrowing money from abroad, thus giving these foreign undertakings an investment in the British Gas Council?
  Mr. Price: Not at all. I am not referring to Clause 2, but am saying that this is a matter of policy which should be discussed at the highest level by the British Government.
  I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley in something she said about financing the nationalised industries. The end result of this process, which I have supported for a long time —I am getting critical, because it must now be considered—is that most of the money required is borrowed abroad and much of our deficit on overseas account, which is the Government's constant worry, is in that borrowing. Everyone knows it, but does nothing about it. The major item of our overseas deficit is the result of the requirements of nationalised industries.
  This is a debatable question, which I will not pursue. I have spoken longer than I intended, but I shall naturally vote for the Bill, with some reservations, because it is not a vote for supply but
  608
  merely gives facilities for the money to be available from Government sources, subject to the approval of the Government. I hope that serious notice will be taken of some of my critical, but moderate, points, because the future welfare of this country depends not only on our success in overseas markets and the export trade but also, ultimately, on our making the fullest and most efficient use of our home resources and stopping the waste of money wherever it can be discovered.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am relieved that we do not have to debate the borrowing powers of the I.R.I. and the E.N.I. on top of all our other business this week, because, on top of an afternoon shift on this Bill and an evening shift on the Town and Country Planning Bill, we would need a third shift. However, if the bonds raised by I.R.I. on the open market are fixed interest, there would be no advantage in debating such a system for financing our nationalised industries, because the people of this country have gathered—rightly, I think—a suspicion of fixed-interest securities in general, whether issued by the Gas Council, the Treasury or anyone else, because they know that, whatever Government are in power, the rate of inflation will continue as in the past and the value of their money will be whittled away. I do not think his suggestion would really be very helpful in financing this enormous borrowing need for the Gas Council.
  The hon. Gentleman also said how much he agreed with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), who had drawn attention to the pressure groups which flogged their own briefs, particularly those whose interests were with the various nationalised industries and the oil industry, and whose interests were conflicting and to some extent irreconcilable. I thought the hon. Gentleman would like to know that I have Calor gas in my own home and therefore cannot have any personal interest in the borrowing powers of the Gas Council.
  Mr. McGuire: I just want to make clear that in talking about flogging their own briefs I just meant nationalised departments, not hon. Members, flogging their own briefs.
  Mr. Lubbock: Yes, I realise that that was what the hon. Member meant when he used that phrase, which was taken up by his hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton, that the Gas Council, the Coal Board, the Central Electricity Generating Board and so on all have different interests and want their points of view expressed. I think that when the hon. Member made his point it was in connection with the need for a much more co-ordinated energy policy than we have had in the past and the unsatisfactory nature of the debates which we have had since the White Paper was produced, for that while it has been possible to discuss energy matters from time to time we have not been able to draw all the strands together. Again tomorrow, as the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) said, we shall be discussing another facet of the problem, the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the nuclear power programme.
  Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member would agree that unless individual points of view are expressed we cannot easily coordinate them, can we?
  Mr. Lubbock: We have to have these individual points of view expressed, but what was worrying the hon. Member for Ince was that we do not consider them in a single debate, in a general debate on fuel and energy policy. We have debates on Reports of Select Committees and on Bills for borrowing powers, which we get at fairly frequent intervals, and also on Orders, but we do not have debates in which all those various strands are brought together so that the House can see what kind of energy policy the Government are pursuing, or whether they have an energy policy at all, and I very much agree with what the hon. Member said about that.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that there was no net advantage if all we are doing is to substitute natural gas for other fuel, and he mentioned that he had been told that 28 coal mines would be closed if natural gas were introduced at the rate planned in the White Paper. Well, of course, he made the same mistake, if I may say so, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). The introduction of natural gas is not going to make the
  610
  slightest difference to the amount of coal produced in this country, for if it had not been for the fortunate discoveries in the North Sea, by 1975 the whole gas industry would have changed over to oil. This was happening at a fantastic rate before the discoveries in 1966.
  Colonel Lancaster: I think that that is against the weight of evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As has been suggested, already 24 million tons of coal were likely to be replaced by 1975. That had nothing to do with gas being replaced by oil.
  Mr. Lubbock: What we are talking about now are the 16 million tons which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South mentioned as the consumption of the gas industry in 1966–67. I was pointing out that, over the period before natural gas had had any effect at all, the consumption of oil was increasing to such an extent that by 1967–68 the number of therms produced from oil gasification plants would be greatly in excess at 1,617 million therms of the amount produced from coal, which was 976 million therms. So that already, before natural gas has had any effect whatever, this process has been happening and would have continued till the middle 1970s; the whole of the gas used in this country would have been derived from oil if no other changes had taken place. I honestly think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not got this one straight, nor the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton.
  It is important that miners should not think that their employment is being jeopardised by the introduction of natural gas and that they therefore should be persuaded to oppose it. If it is for the benefit of the country—and that is what we are here to discuss—we should not unnecessarily alarm people into thinking that some moves taken by the Government and which are for the general benefit of the community would have an adverse effect on them in particular.
  Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman will at least pay me the compliment of agreeing that I have never, either in this House or elsewhere, opposed the introduction of natural gas, will he not? I have regarded the discoveries as a good

  611
  thing in themselves, if they are properly exploited. It would be quite wrong to create any impression that I am an opponent of natural gas. I am nothing of the kind. I want proper use of all our resources, properly planned by the people responsible.
  Mr. Lubbock: I accept that, but I thought that the effect of the hon. Gentleman's remarks could be that some miners would think that their employment would be jeopardised and that, therefore, they would be brought to oppose Government policy on this issue. That would be harmful to the interests of the community as a whole without in any way benefiting those miners' employment.
  I come for a moment to the speech by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. He interested me very much in what he had to say about the genesis of the reasoned Amendment, and how it was at his instigation that the Tory Party put it down. I am glad to see that he is assuming the mantle of the leadership of the Tory Party. I always thought he had it in him. I am glad that now my impression has been confirmed. I agree with him that it was a great shame that on the other side of the House there was nobody of more importance than the Parliamentary Secretary listening to his speech. What was worse was that there were only six of his hon. Friends here. I think that showed shocking disrespect to the hon. Member.
  Mr. J. T. Price: There were no members of the Liberal Party.
  Mr. Lubbock: Yes there were. I was listening to the hon. Gentleman, and with my usual care, as I always do in these debates, for I always enjoy his speeches greatly. Although I think some of what he said was nonsensical he is always enjoyable to listen to.
  To disagree with him on one issue, he said that the gas industry could not contribute to exports. Of course, in the direct sense that is true. It is not selling gas to the Belgians or the French any more than we are selling electricity to the Germans, though we may sell some to the French. The point is that the industry is the basis for the production
  612
  by other industries of goods for export. The hon. Member may laugh, but it seems to me that if this country is to get out of the economic mess which it is in and has been in for some years past it has got to concentrate much more than it has done on promoting exports.
  I have always been a strong supporter of the use of electricity for smelters if an economic case can be shown for that, and I would be an equally strong supporter of gas in the chemical industry. It is one of the sectors in which the rate of growth will be most rapid, from now, at the end of the 1960s, into the 1970s, and it can make a very substantial contribution to exports through the use of its products in the chemical industry, thereby leading directly to the earning of foreign currency for this country of ours. Moreover, I would expect natural gas to replace oil. As we see from the table of figures presented by Sir Henry Jones to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, it will progressively in the 1970s be important in promoting exports and also, what is equally important, in reducing imports. Perhaps if we concentrated more on that —which, in the long-term, would not be as difficult to secure as an increase in exports—we could put our balance of payments right quickly. This means that the industry could be extremely vital to the restoration of our balance of payments.
  The argument advanced about the Bill, particularly by Conservative hon. Members, is that we should not let the gas industry have these enormous borrowing powers extending over a period of years but should consider the matter as a short-term problem and force the industry to return to Parliament more frequently so that we are able to review the progress it has made, discover whether the uncertainties to which the hon. Member for Finchley referred have been removed, whether the extent of the supply has reached the figures mentioned by Sir Henry Jones and his colleagues and whether the movement of prices which we were led to expect some years ago has, or is likely to, come about. I disagree with this argument, not because there should not be, in the words of the Opposition Amendment
  "… the most rigorous Parliamentary scrutiny of all public expenditure …"

  613
  but because I question whether the Floor of the House is the right place to conduct such an inquiry. I have listened to the whole of this debate and while I have enjoyed the speeches, I cannot pretend that I have learned a great deal about the gas industry since half past three this afternoon. Our discussion has not added to the total sum of human knowledge.
  Mr. David Steel: Except for the last ten minutes.
  Mr. Lubbock: My hon. Friend is too kind.
  If we are to subject the public industries to the scrutiny which the hon. Member for Finchley wants, then let the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries do that upstairs under the able guidance of the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). Let the members of that Committee get on with the job because they have the time to do it while we, faced with a crowded Parliamentary timetable, are not able to go into the figures provided by the Gas Council and the rosy and other predictions that are put forward. We should allow our colleagues to go into the matter in depth and then present us with their report on which we can form a conclusion. This is better than having an endless success of general borrowing powers debates because they do not get us any further and few questions are answered. I would like the answers to some questions and, in asking a few, I hope that the hon. Member for Westhoughton will pass them on to his colleagues on the Select Committee and to Sir Henry Jones.
  The hon. Member for Finchley spoke of uncertainties about supply. It is safe to predict, I suggest, that 4,000 m.c.f.d. will be available as a basis for the Government's and Gas Council's policy. We have an assured supply of 3,000 m.c.f.d., as Sir Henry Jones has shown, and it would be unusual geologically if, having made these discoveries and knowing what the rate of success of drilling has been since we began in the North Sea, we did not increase the supply figure to beyond the 4,000 m.c.f.d. target mentioned by Sir Henry Jones.
  My view is the opposite to that expressed by the hon. Member for Finchley. I consider that we have vastly underesti-
  614
  mated the resources of the North Sea. We have explored only a tiny fraction of the area and, as we go north, we may find oil as well as gas—as predicted by some geologists—and that would have a profound effect on our economy. Having studied the literature on the subject, I have come to exactly the opposite conclusion to that reached by the hon. Member for Finchley. I believe that the sources of supply mentioned by the Gas Council are conservatively estimated and that the reserves which exist under the bed and not yet discovered may amount to double the figures so far announced.
  Mr. David Lane: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever the geological prospects—nobody is disputing that side of the question—it is essential that the price negotiated is high enough to encourage the further exploration that is necessary? My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made that point.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next remarks. Two inconsistent points of view have been expressed in the debate. First, the hon. Member for Finchley said that we would not get the enormous price reductions we had been led to expect. Some hon. Members agreed with her and said that the whole thing was a fraud and a sham and that the 13 per cent. increase imposed this year, with the approval of the Prices and Incomes Board, had shown how unwarrantably optimistic everyone had been when the discoveries of natural gas were first made.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) believe that the companies exploring for gas in the North Sea are not being paid properly for their efforts and that if the price were restricted to as little as 2·87d. per therm—the price which Phillips is being paid—they will be driven to the other side of the North Sea or the Middle East and this exploration will cease.
  Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. Either the price will come down and we will be screwing the poor wretched oil companies until oil runs out of them—with the result that the British gas consumer will be receiving gas at

  615
  too generous a price—or the price reductions will not take place, so that perhaps we are being too generous to the prospecting companies. If the Gas Council has arrived at this agreement with Phillips, I suggest that one can take it that it was an arms length transaction and that if gas is coming ashore at that price it is bound to lead to some price reductions when it gets into the consumers' stoves and heaters.
  Hon. Members may ask how one can say that when the nation has been faced with the recent tremendous gas price increase. I will explain why the Government made a serious mistake in this matter but first, to prove that my remarks have some basis, I commend to hon. Members a news item in The Times Business Supplement of 7th May about the introduction of natural gas into the South-East in the coming year. The article commented that in a Press announcement made by the South-Eastern Gas Board, Mr. Nigel Bruce had said that nearly 100,000 customers in the area would be able to take natural gas in the next year and that the conversion rate would build up to 300,000 customers by 1970. It went on to point out that since these people were changing over, there would be a reduction in price at the time of conversion. The hon. Member for Finchley is, therefore, wrong in saying that these reductions are a chimera. In fact, they will happen the instant that consumers' appliances are converted, and this is proved by the announcement of the South-Eastern Gas Board.
  Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speech as carefully as he said he was he would recollect my remark that it is of little use to tell the consumer that she will get a reduction of about a half-penny when she has just suffered an increase of 11 per cent.
  Mr. Lubbock: I dispute that there is force in the hon. Lady's argument. I was about to query whether this large price increase, approved by the Prices and Incomes Board, was justified. I had some correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary on this point and I am not satisfied with the justification for the increase as put forward by the Prices and Incomes Board.
  First, however, I must make a general point about the Board's Report, since this
  616
  is of fundamental importance. The Board was asked to look at the tariffs for the gas industry in the light of the financial target fixed for one year. At the same time, it was asked to take into account the Government's policies for the nationalised industries, which include the Fuel Policy White Paper which required the gas industry to vastly expand its output in the next few years.
  The N.B.P.I. said that it had to consider to what extent these two objectives were reconcilable. I do not think it possible to ask the Gas Council to achieve a 10·2 per cent. return on capital in 1968–69 and also to have regard to what the price of gas will be in the system once all the old coal-fired plant has been phased out of existence and the oil reforming plant has been scrapped and £300 million invested in it written off.
  The industry would not be able to do these two things. By doing the arithmetic in those two ways the two prices would be different. First, there would be the price caused by 10·2 per cent. return on capital and then the quite different price of looking at the long term plans of the industry and finding what happens when the pipelines are in to take natural gas into consumers' homes. If the two figures are different, the N.B.P.I. could not adhere to the terms of reference given to it by the Government.
  I turn to the table of costs on page 9 of the N.B.P.I. Report, which is the basis of the price increase which has been imposed. I shall make comments to show that there is serious doubt whether the figures can be trusted, not that the N.B.P.I. cooked the books, but that the assumptions made are so cautious that it appears that we could have got away with a much lower price increase even within the rather confusing terms of reference.
  In 1968–69, for example, we have 0·6d. per therm on account of devaluation and the Middle East situation. I noticed in his annual report the chairman of B.P. said the other day that the effect of the closure of the Suez Canal resulting from the Middle East war would by 1972 be small, and by 1975 minimal. The chairman meant that the company is constructing 200,000 ton tankers which can go via the Cape and which would be too bulky to go through the Canal, even if navigation could be restored.

  617
  The cost per ton of bringing crude oil from the Middle East in those large vessels would be less per ton than bringing it through the Suez Canal. That is why Sir Maurice Bridgeman said that as these vessels came into service the closure of the Suez Canal could be taken in one's stride. The 0·6d. per therm on account of the Middle East crisis will not, therefore, be a lasting burden on the costs of the gas industry. It will disappear as its crude oil comes in in very large tankers. Once the industry has phased out the use of oil for reforming, it will not arise at all because then we shall not be using oil. Here is a short-term cost which the industry faces which ought not to be taken into account in the arithmetic.
  Then there is the cost of converting domestic consumers' appliances, about which the hon. Lady was very amusing. I read the article from which she quoted. It is difficult for the consumer to see why he ought to throw apparatus away when he considers that it has many years of useful life left in it. I am amazed that the cost should be as enormous as has been quoted. The N.B.P.I. was apparently told that the average cost per consumer is £30. Sir Henry Jones told the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries that conversion of a very old gas cooker would cost up to £10, but if it were a modern cooker the cost would be only a few shillings. If £30 is the average cost per consumer it appears that everyone has either three very ancient gas using appliances, or about 30 modern appliances. I wonder if the figures are grossly exaggerated.
  At this early stage when conversions have been practical only on an experimental basis at such places as Canvey Island and Burton-on-Trent, we cannot get at the final figure for costing all the conversions throughout the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to look carefully at the figures and to see whether they are exaggerated because, if £400 million of the borrowing powers we are discussing is to meet the cost of conversions, perhaps the figure could be whittled down.
  I have given these examples to show that I am not at all happy about the price increase imposed with the approval of the N.B.P.I. Just as it has been said that the borrowing powers of the gas
  618
  industry should be justified to the public and just as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South suggested, that this could be done by coming back every year to the House, and as I agree that this should be done in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, so it is even more important where price increases are imposed by nationalised industries and the consumer has to carry a great burden at a time when his wages or salary is fixed that that should also be justified by the figures the Gas Council has in its possession.
  I appeal to the Minister to think carefully before allowing price increases based on such flimsy evidence, which upset many people, particularly old-age pensioners who have to meet heavy charges further increased as a result of the N.B.P.I. Report. Does not the Minister think that they should be justified up to the hilt and further increases by the gas industry or any other nationalised industry justified, not only to the House but as publicly as possible, so that people will know that they are not being fleeced?
  I do not think it sensible to move reasoned Amendments to borrowing powers Bills. I look upon this as a political device. I certainly will not support the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South in rushing through the Lobby in opposition to the Gas Council's requests.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I did not say "rush".
  Mr. Lubbock: Flit.
  Sir G. Nabarro: No. Tread with a glad heart.
  Mr. Lubbock: I want to see gas prices reduced as rapidly as possible. If the Gas Council tells me that at this stage the borrowing powers have to be increased by this amount to do so and can promise that the rewards will be there in the end, I will go along with it.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Atkins: I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of this debate. I came in to listen when the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was on his feet. Everyone knows that he is an extremely able and entertaining speaker. I never fail to be delighted by his speeches. He never fails to enthuse me when my enthusiasm for the Government

  619
  is lagging. May I not disappoint him too much by saying that if he fails to get his hon. Friends to follow him into the Lobby, he drives a greater number of my hon. Friends into the Government Lobby? He has objected that the sum which the Bill seeks to enable the Gas Council to borrow may be much greater than is needed because only one-twelfth of the supplies of natural gas have been contracted for at 2·78d. per therm.
  Sir G. Nabarro: 2·87d. per therm.
  Mr. Atkins: That is worse. This is the clue to the hon. Member's objection. Like many of his hon. Friends and people outside, he has a doctrinaire objection to the Government bargaining well to have the public money if it means that foreign companies or British companies do not get such high profits.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the balance of payments. I am not certain about the figure, but I read that even at this figure when all the natural gas resources are being exploited it will mean a payment of £60 million a year to foreign companies because they, rather than our own companies or our Government, are exploiting the natural gas. That is a considerable loss of revenue on the balance of payments. It would be even worse if the figure per therm were to be increased. The figure which has been arrived at is fair. The Government have consulted United States experts, where the amount paid per therm is even less. If the figure is satisfactory to Phillips, it should be satisfactory to us, because it is likely that that company knows what it is doing.
  It is not the coal industry that will suffer from this, because in recent years gas has been increasingly produced from oil. The amount of coal that will be used in future will be negligible. Since this is a national resource, the more gas that is used the less oil we shall use. This is one of the worries of the oil companies. They are afraid that they will lose by getting less money for the natural gas which they are able to exploit and by selling less oil. I know that hon. Members opposite represent the British oil interests very strongly.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Absolute rot.
  Mr. Atkins: That is true. One intervention might be taken to be representation of such an interest.
  Sir G. Nabarro: That is a most impertinent suggestion to make after these copious references to my speech. I declare my interest at once—absolutely none; no interest as shareholder, direct or indirect, in any oil company operating in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now withdraw his scurrilous innuendo.
  Mr. Atkins: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said "at least one intervention in the. debate". I did not refer to the hon. Gentleman. I know well enough that the hon. Gentleman represents no vested interests.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am much obliged.
  Mr. Atkins: Some of the objections made from the other side are concerned not so much with excess borrowing by the Government as with price. To say, as the hon. Gentleman did—I think that I quoted him correctly in this instance— that eleven-twelfths of the supplies are not being exploited, and, by implication, that they may not be exploited is being very pessimistic. Very conservative estimates have been made so far of the supplies. It is likely that much larger quantities than are envisaged at present will be exploited.
  Let us suppose that eleven-twelfths of the supplies will not be exploited. Are we right to assume that the Gas Council will not need to borrow any further capital? It is likely that, if the natural resources of the North Sea are not exploited, the Gas Council will require to borrow much more than is envisaged in the Bill for installing new plant to produce gas by conventional methods. This method of supplying gas is much cheaper than having to install plant to produce gas. It is not to be assumed that the Gas Council will not require the sum mentioned in the Bill if eleven-twelfths of the gas supplies are not exploited.
  The gas industry is a supreme example of successful public enterprise. When the industry was nationalised after the war, some of us objected to its nationalisation, because we regarded the industry as a worthless asset. Most of us thought that

  621
  it was already quickly decaying and would not take long to die. The Gas Council, with remarkable enterprise, set about producing gas in new ways and stimulating the demand for gas. It succeeded remarkably well. It has turned a decaying industry into one of the most prosperous growth industries in Britain. This remarkable achievement should be acknowledged more frequently.
  Some objections have been made by, among others, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, to the effect that the Government are spending too much. This kind of Government expenditure— investment in productive capacity—is surely best of all. Some of my hon. Friends and I have objected to Government expenditure on military equipment abroad. I agree that there has been too much of that type of expenditure in the past. We think that expenditure in the form of investment in nationalised industries is be:ter than gifts to private industry which will not always be used to the best advantage. Expenditure of the type covered by the Bill is the best of all.
  Our chief problem for many years has been that there has been insufficient investment in industry. If the Government show the way, as they do in the Bill, by increasing such investment, they require and deserve the greatest possible commendation from us.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. G. B. Drayson: The majority of speakers have dealt, in the main, with the vast sum of money involved in the Bill. Far too little time has been devoted to consumer problems. The Minister stressed three points. One was the effect that developments in the gas industry were likely to have on the coal industry. The second was the part that North Sea gas would play in the future of gas consumption. Then the right hon. Gentleman talked about the improvement of marketing.
  In connection with North Sea gas, which is the main issue in this debate, the Minister said that £44 million would be devoted to North Sea developments. Will £44 million be necessary for additional services or matters arising out of the discoveries under the North Sea, such as pipelines or other installations; or does this refer to joint ventures which the Gas Council will exploit with com-
  622
  mercial companies? Does the £44 million refer almost exclusively to offshore drilling to discover further gas fields under the North Sea? A certain amount of apprehension has been expressed about the amount of development work going on in the North Sea. The price of 2·87d. per therm for North Sea gas is very much lower than many of the oil companies originally expected, and it is thought that some are removing their rigs to the coast of Europe, where they feel that their exploratory work and discoveries may be more generously rewarded.
  At the beginning of the North Sea development some of us gained the impression that the oil companies had been told that if they found gas in the North Sea an acceptable price would be one that was competitive with what the Gas Council was then paying for Sahara gas, which I believe was about 5d. a therm. It was felt that an agreement had been reached with the National Coal Board that whatever the price of gas coming into the country the price to the consumer would be brought up to a figure equivalent to that at which gas could be produced from indigenous coal.
  I believe that at that time the Gas Council faced very substantial profits, because there was a substantial difference between the price it paid for Sahara gas and the cost of producing gas from coal from our own pits. It embarked on a very costly advertising campaign, not only to stimulate the demand for gas but to show on its accounts that it was not making a substantial profit, which would result in the consumers asking for a reduction in prices.
  I believe that the price of 2·87d. per therm which has been agreed with Phillips does not take fully into account the enormous amount of money that has been expended on the exploration work. It may discourage a number of companies from continuing their efforts in the North Sea, which must be ultimately to the detriment of the national economy.
  I saw from my own gas bill from the North Thames Gas Board the other day that it was charging me 27d. per therm, and with the standing charge the total price per therm must be well over 28d. Therefore, the consumer in the London area—and no doubt this applies over the rest of the country—is being asked to

  623
  pay 10 times as much for his gas as the figure agreed with Phillips.
  The Bill will obviously be passed, and the money will be available for the requirements of the Gas Council. What hope do the Government hold out to the consumer that there will ultimately be a decrease in the price he pays for his gas? That is what the public are really interested in. When the figure the Council is paying for North Sea gas is one-tenth the price charged to the consumer, there must be scope for a price reduction.
  Is any time limit set to repayment of the amounts concerned in the Bill? Is it thought that from the profits of the industry these large sums will be liquidated over a period of time? Does the Minister expect that in two or three years' time, or perhaps in only a year, his Department will ask for additional borrowing powers?
  The Bill would be acceptable to the public if they really felt that the cost of gas to the consumer would be reduced. But the disparity between the prices the Gas Boards are demanding from the consumers today and the price agreed with one company for its discoveries in the North Sea is so vast that there must be a scope for a price reduction. That is what we have been looking for.
  When a settlement was assumed to be near in April, 1967, a headline appeared in one of our national evening newspapers saying:
  "Gas price may be slashed by a third Central heating rates could come down 6d. a therm."
  Was there any truth in that headline at the time? Can the Minister hold out any hope of a reduction in the cost to the consumer when gas costing 2·87d. a therm is flowing through the mains?
  I hope that the Minister's reference to strengthening the marketing organisation concerns only the marketing of the gas and not the sale of appliances, and that the money will not be used to subsidise the gas showrooms at the expense of private enterprise, which must compete. I see that the Bill also deals with electricity. Electrical traders up and down the country are having to compete with a subsidised State industry in retailing goods to the general public, and I hope that
  624
  the borrowing powers the Bill confers will not be used to the detriment of the private trader who is supplying goods in both the gas and electrical industries.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I might have been happier if we had been discussing what might be called the National Fuel Board (Borrowing Powers) Bill, because that would have shown me that we had taken possibly the final step in the evolution of fuel policy towards integration, which would imply that in capital investment and capital expenditure programmes there would be proper observation of the fair and rightful share which the four sources of fuel might have in the national interest. I am afraid that that will not be for some time, because any Minister of any Government is bound to face a major dilemma, particularly in giving any of the nationalised industries borrowing powers.
  Not long ago the possibility of talking about fuel was relatively easy. We were talking then of two fuels. Now we are talking about four fuels, and the most activated forms are nuclear and gas. While we have not reached a stage of talking in terms of financing a properly integrated fuel industry, nevertheless, we have to be cautious about the extent to which we give borrowing powers to each industry when they work in many respects quite separately.
  I was impressed by the hon. Lady's comment about the need to take care. There is no quarrel about this on either side of the House. There is a great need for scrutiny, and to that extent the words in the Amendment appear to be reasonable. I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that this is perhaps not the place to do it, and that it is better, wiser and more efficient to discuss the detailed estimates and programme of such an industry in another place, preferably upstairs, where the books can be looked at. The use of the words in the Amendment arises from the need to have a rigorous Parliamentary scrutiny of all public expenditure, but, in the context of a debate in the House of Commons, that is political play.
  The other reason why hon. Members opposite do not want to give a Second Reading to the Bill is that, according to their Amendment, they have not had

  625
  the opportunity of debating the White Paper on Fuel Policy. This is not a very good reason for refusing a major and expanding industry the borrowing powers that it needs. The important question before the House is, does the gas industry require these borrowing powers?
  The existing borrowing powers arose from an Act of 1948, with a lower limit of £900 million rising to £1,200 million. The Bill seeks to give added borrowing powers to the Gas Council and to the area boards of £1,600 million at the lower limit. I presume the maximum of £2,400 million refers to a term of several years ending in 1972–73. The condition between the lower and upper limits is under Parliamentary control. Beyond the limit of £1,600 million the Minister will have to make an Order, which will have to come to the House. In that sense there is Parliamentary control. An objection to Second Reading on the grounds that are put before us in the Amendment does not appear to be valid.

  We have heard a lot today about the enormous expenditure that the Gas Council and the area boards are to be allowed to embark upon. There have been expressions of deep concern, but of the 630 Members of Parliament, there are very few present today who are as concerned as the hon. Lady suggested.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: They are on the Committees.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I have heard that excuse before. It is not legitimate to convey to the public deep concern when that deep concern is only truly felt by some of the Members of Parliament who are here.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman must not denigrate hon. Members of the House in this way. As he knows perfectly well, the attendance has been decimated because of the silly way in which business is arranged. They are upstairs.
  Mr. Leadbitter: I will not pursue the point any further. I have made the point that it is not fair to the public to express concern when the concern is not there. The Gas Council has submitted estimates to the Government based upon programmes which have been seen to be acceptable, and which reflect the ex-
  626
  panding nature of the industry arising from the exploitation of gas in the North Sea. That is a true picture of the situation. It is wrong to express alarm in terms of public expenditure which is not true and when Members of Parliament have shown that that is not the position.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Finch-ley (Mrs. Thatcher) has told the House that the costs of conversion would amount to £400 million. The hon. Lady forgot to mention that if natural gas is not distributed to the 13 million existing consumers and the 80,000 existing industrialists, they must continue to use town gas. Town gas is conveyed to users through gas-making plant. If there is no conversion, gas-making plant and replacement of gas-making plant are needed at a cost in the order of £600 million. It was not quite fair to say that the £300 million or £400 million required for the cost of conversion was an expenditure which could be taken by itself. The hon. Lady should have gone on to say that the cost of keeping gas-making plant, newly commissioned plant and replacement plant, was much higher.
  The choice for the Government and the Gas Council is quite simple. It is to take advantage of the great new discovery in the North Sea and, before production gets into full swing, provide for the means of distribution, so that in the next 10 years there is not a programme of capital investment in new gas-making plant, but a less costly project of conversion of heating systems for the domestic user and industry.
  It follows, however, that the comments on this subject, unfortunately, were very much belated. Even now, the distribution services for natural gas are well on the way to development. The pipeline from Easington to the north and that from the south-east terminal to the central north-south line are pretty well on the way. Some 1,300 miles of piped distribution services for natural gas represent the programme on which the Gas Council has already set its course.
  The capital programme arising out of the discovery of natural gas cannot be stopped, and the question for the Gas Council and the area boards to answer is, what is the best rate of development which is in the true interests of the industry and of the other industries which supply fuel?

  627
  Having asked that question, I hope that I can ask the Minister if this rate of development has been attended to properly. If we go too fast, we may create an imbalance in our fuel servicing. If we go too slow we may create a great deal of uncertainty among the companies which are exploring. It is a vitally important question and its examination requires the most careful study, because it is a matter which is extremely sensitive and finely balanced.
  At the moment, something like 3,000 m.c.f.d. is being produced from the gas fields in the North Sea and, as the hon. Member for Orpington said, in the near future that may increase to 4,000 m.c.f.d. In terms of evaluation, the significance of this can be determined very briefly by pointing out that we import 100 m.c.f.d. from Algeria and, therefore, the fields in the North Sea are by no means small. There are millions of pounds worth of capital invested and it is incumbent upon the Government and the Gas Council to look ahead and plan distribution services, conversions and the capital programme in such a way that consumers and suppliers are not affected adversely at any point. It requires a careful and continuing watching brief day by day.
  In the last analysis, in an area where the tendency is to talk in terms of economics and technical jargon, it should be borne in mind that we are discussing the men and women who are both producing and consuming. We are not the judges of what is best in material terms when we address ourselves to the problem in that sense. Men and women work in the coal industry, the electricity industry and the oil industry. Ancillary to those industries there are many other services upon which men and women depend for their livelihoods. I hope that what I have read in the White Paper on Fuel Policy will help me to urge the Government to be cautious about the rate of capital investment in the gas industry or, for that matter, in any other industry. They must move away a little from strict material terms of profitability within an individual industry and try to look in social profitability terms at the whole fuel industry, comprising gas, coal, oil and nuclear energy.
  628
  The weak child in this quartet is coal, and it is the only long standing indigenous fuel that we have. The men in that industry have given their lives to the country, and much of our wealth has flowed from the loyalty of the mining communities. At times, when one considers work conditions and wages, it has been more than their loyalty.
  In considering our overall fuel policy, a careful study must be made of the part which coal is to play in the national interest, what percentage of growth it is to have, and so on. As we have seen in recent weeks, there is a productivity element even in an extractive industry which in material, social and economic terms can be beneficial to the country.
  When we are dealing with the borrowing powers of individual elements of the fuel complex, while it may be easy to say to the Government that the Gas Council has justified its case for increasing the limits of its borrowing powers, at the same time we must not delude ourselves about the need to marry our thinking about it with the other elements in fuel policy.
  I have tried to understand why we want to give borrowing powers to the gas and electricity boards to raise foreign currency. The hon. Lady mentioned this and when she sat down I tried to see what advantages we would gain. The House has not been enlightened about it. What are the advantages, both to the industry and to the country, in having power to borrow foreign currency? This is a most important question and too little has been said about it today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some information on this.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend understands that hon. Members on both sides, apart from the general political banter which goes on from time to time, are anxious that, when we give the Government certain powers, it should be realised that it is on the understanding that we have not had the benefit of looking at the details of capital programmes and costings and cost effectiveness. Because we often lack such information, it would be better if a White Paper, in addition to the brief memorandum attached to a Bill, were issued to explain these details more fully.

  629
  It is easy and interesting to talk about principles and programmes in general but sometimes we in this House would like to look upon ourselves not so much as laymemn but rather as intelligent and interested people who want information which we can scrutinise with care, so that we may have the opportunity of being able to advise the Government against the advisers whose advice sometimes lead to shortcomings in the Government's proposals.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. David Lane: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) has said. But I thought that, at the beginning of his speech, he took too lightheartedly the huge sums of public money we are talking about. We are also discussing one of the most exciting and significant events in this country this century—the discovery and introduction of indigenous natural gas. That is not immediately obvious from the sparse attendance at the debate, but the poor attendance is one of the regrettable symptoms of the clogging of business which means that many hon. Members who would like to have been here are upstairs dealing with other Bills.
  I support the Amendment. This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, we want to give the strongest encouragement to the growth of natural gas consumption. On the other hand, we have the duty to watch the spending of the taxpayers' money on this scale, even if it is still in the future. My support for the Amendment is in no way a criticism—and I hope that this goes for my right hon. and hon. Friends—of the way in which the gas operation has been done so far.
  I am thinking primarily of the North Sea search, done mainly by private enterprise. It is good that we should pay tribute to this. It has been made possible by the 1964 Act, passed promptly by the last Government, which paved the way to what has happened since in the takeover by technology. We have seen technology at work brilliantly in the North Sea search and we are seeing it this summer, particularly in East Anglia, in the pipeline laying.
  We see it in a small but important detail of the future—the radio control of the flow of gas. I am pleased that
  630
  part of the work for this is to be done by a company in my constituency. We should pay tribute to the technology making possible what we are discussing. We do not wish to hamper the enterprise of the exploring companies, the Gas Council and the consumers in their plans to make use of the gas. The gas will be introduced year after year, very quickly in several parts of East Anglia. It will give an extra development fillip to that area. As it is a non-toxic gas we hope that it will lower the rate of suicide, not least in my own constituency.
  I cannot welcome this Bill however. These big new powers for which we are being asked to vote, cover a five-year spread and there are enormous uncertainties over the whole business. As has been said, we have not had a real debate on this fuel policy White Paper, except at odd moments of the night. I hope that with a new Minister of Power and a new Leader of the House, we may still get the chance for a full debate on the principles before long.
  In several places the White Paper mentions the uncertainty of these forecasts. A second uncertainty has to do with the beach price to be paid by the Gas Council for the gas. We know there are delicate negotiations in progress and trust that it will not be long before a settlement is reached which all parties regard as fair.
  The aim must be, as the White Paper says:
  "… that the price should be fixed as low as possible, consistent with encouraging exploration."
  I hope that the zeal for a low cost form of energy will not force the price so low that further exploration is discouraged. Enormous cost is involved for these further reserves to be proved. I have not time to go into the figures, but it is vital that nothing should be done to put off further exploration into the more difficult areas of the search. At its lowest, it is a little disquieting to read in the Press that, compared with the end of 1967, when 14 rigs were at work in the North Sea, this week there are only four. There are signs of these moving elsewhere. I hope that these important considerations will not be lost sight of in the remaining and crucial stages of the price negotiations.

  631
  I turn to the market for the gas. There is a tremendous debate going on this week involving a parade of all the power barons, about the different possibilities for using natural gas. The Chairman of the National Coal Board has been talking about it, leaders of the electricity industry want to get their hands on more gas; there is the question of how far beyond the premium markets natural gas should go into industrial markets. This is a major question mark.
  I have a point to raise about conversion. I have seen two reports in the evening papers. One was about the enormous plans for introducing the gas in many parts of the country, and the other was a letter from a constituent of mine who had read about the difficulties of conversion in Canvey Island, asking if these technical snags had been overcome. If the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure those who are to have this conversion that such snags have been overcome, we should be very grateful. So, given this large area of uncertainty, we have the main financial request of the Government to the House for powers to go straight to an extra £1,200 million of borrowing.
  This, on my arithmetic, is £5 per year per head of the population, men, women and children. This is an enormous sum of money and I suggest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said earlier, that it would be far more satisfactory in this situation if we could be certain in two years' time, which happens to be the time when the coal borrowing powers expire, of having a full discussion in the House and not necessarily an abbreviated discussion on an Order.
  Summing up, may I say why I support the Amendment? We are being offered by the Government a very attractive cherry, but I do not think we should take it at one bite. We want to go forward enthusiastically with natural gas but we have to show a proper concern for the use of national resources and for the taxpayers' money; and the danger seems to me to be that the progress may be rather over-enthusiastic and there may be inadequate protection for the taxpayers' interests. For that reason, I hope the House will not give an unqualified Second Reading to this Bill tonight.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: Sandwiched rather incongruously in this Bill concerned with borrowing powers is Clause 5 which empowers the authorities concerned to provide technical assistance for overseas aid. It is incongruous that it should be there, but none the less I welcome this because it is a subject very dear to my heart. I see that it makes very little difference to the financial position of the industries concerned. Indeed, it does not in any way represent an addition to the amount of money that is available for overseas aid since the cost of such assistance, which cannot be very much, is to be borne by the Vote under the control of the Minister for Overseas Development. Whatever other reservations hon. Members may have on either side of this House with regard to this Bill, I would have thought that that Clause at least would meet with unqualified approval.
  It is strange that a statutory provision of this kind should be necessary in order to make that permissible. I suppose this points to the fact that one of the difficulties that have dogged nationalised industries for some 20 years is that whenever one of them needs to enlarge the scope of its activities that cannot be done by any internal method but must necessarily mean recourse to this House. Whatever view one may hold about the need for scrutiny and supervision of nationalised industries—and I would be second to none in believing it most important that they should be made as responsible to this House as possible—I should not have thought that a small matter of that kind really ought to have to go through this kind of processing in order to be made possible.
  I suppose one can say the same to some extent of the members of the Board. One of the Clauses of this quite short Bill also requires a statutory provision in order to add to their number. When one compares this with the position of a public company which can make alterations in its objects and aims quite simply by internal process, it seems to be strange that this should be necessary. This Bill is mainly concerned with the question of borrowing powers. I have some sympathy with those who claim that we sanction borrowing powers with very

  633
  little debate and subject them to only intermittent scrutiny. I suspect that the right remedy for that in many ways would be for this House not only to keep more rational hours and avoid midnight debates but also to spread its activities over a more reasonable period of the year.
  This is not the time to debate the procedure of this House but one can say in pasing at least that if we conducted our business in the same way as occupations outside this House and did not have three-monthly interludes and so much of our time punctuated by recesses we would not need to discuss matters at late hours and early hours and would be able to discuss them more frequently, and I suspect a great deal more efficiently, than they are sometimes discussed at the moment.
  I approve of the extension of the borrowing powers, although I am bound to say that I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) that there would be no objection to a nationalised industry issuing equity shares—that may come as a surprise to the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Peter Emery)—provided that they carried no voting powers and that they were like "A" class voting shares at present permissible under the Companies Act. Then there would be no derogation from the ownership of the title of the State in the nationalised industry. This would provide the industry with the flexibility which sometimes is lacking in the system of borrowing which prevails. There is no reason why this should not be run in double harness with the borrowing which exists under this and the previous system.
  Hon. Members should be prepared to consider all methods of financing nationalised industries and not be unduly hostile to that kind of device. However, none of us can say that there is any real objection to the extension of these borrowing powers. I welcome them very much, particularly in relation to the North Sea gas proposals. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) said, this is an exciting new departure in our technological advance. We should all rejoice in the fact that this is the first major
  634
  indigenous resource which has come to hand for many years.
  I hope that the Ministry of Power will give thought to setting up its own exploitation system so that it will be less given to deferring to the power of the international oil companies and not be unduly worried if they are being frightened off, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) seemed to suggest. We know that there is a world surplus of oil. We know that oil resources are still being discovered, and we may well find that our bargaining power in relation to international oil concerns improves.
  There is obviously a conflict of interest between the oil companies as producers from sources outside this country and their undertakings in the North Sea. Of the two, it is obvious that they are more likely to take heed of their main sources of wealth, which are outside this country, which, in many cases, are in the sterling area and, in many instances, situated in chronically unstable countries. Therefore, we should be much more inclined to put ourselves in a position to exploit these resources ourselves.
  Often, nationalised industries have been declining industries, like coal or the railways, or they have been bedevilled by under-capitalisation, like the steel industry. The electricity industry is a modern and expanding nationalised industry of the first magnitude. I should like to see the State come in on the ground floor in relation to this form of nationalised venture. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say rather more about what we can do by direct exploitation of the resources in the North Sea. Whatever modest contribution they make in the immediate future, they present an exciting future for the country as a whole in years further ahead.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I think that the Minister of Power will be distressed to hear from his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary about the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), because he said that in his opinion Clauses 5 and 6 were rather unnecessary. I would counsel the Minister and any Member of Parliament not to

  635
  have this attitude, which seems to be growing in the party opposite, of becoming a little tired with the Parliamentary process. These are important provisions and I do not wish to see any system, no matter how much the Government may want it, whereby decisions can be made without being brought before the House for approval.
  The main part of the Bill is concerned with a great deal of money. In the first part we see a straight extension in borrowing powers of £400 million with an additional £800 million, which can come periodically by order.
  The first point I raise is whether this is not too much at this time in our economy, bearing in mind the history of the nationalised industries. It is a sobering thought that since October, 1964, we have had price rises in the public sector of exactly 20 per cent., whereas, if we take a comparable period, the index of household goods has risen by only 7 per cent. In these circumstances there is a need for careful scrutiny at all times of the capital expenditure of the publicly-controlled industries. I, therefore, feel that £400 million is too much to take at one time.
  In the debate on the Gas Industry (Borrowing Powers) last year, the former Minister of Power, on the question of natural gas, said:
  "The total cost will be about £400 million, and over the next five years it will be about £190 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 985.]
  It is clear from these figures that this amendment will cover a considerable period of time—too long, I suggest— before we have Parliamentary scrutiny.
  I raise two points. First, I hope that no Member of this House will agree to a major extension of borrowing powers which gives commercial freedom of capital expenditure until we do two things. First, to fully review the pricing policies in the nationalised fuel industries, with particular reference to gas.
  I was interested to see what was said in the Evening Standard of 10th May, 1967. This might be of interest to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) who takes a great interest in the amount that we spend on natural gas compared with competing fuels. The headline read,
  "Gas price may be slashed by a third".
  636
  That was the indication at that time. I wonder whether this figure is still true. I doubt it, because things change very dramatically and quickly on the fuel front.
  On the other hand, it has changed in another direction. The Parliamentary Secretary, who takes a great deal of interest in the matter, will be aware of the other policy question about which we in Scotland are concerned—namely, the price of gas in Scotland. I am not prepared to give a Second Reading to a Bill which gives freedom to spend £400 million while we have escalation in the differential prices between different areas of the country.
  In Written Answer to me on 13th May, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that in the last annual period for which figures are available, 1966–67, the average revenue per therm of the Scottish Gas Board was 27·8d., and the average for the English and Welsh Gas Boards was 22·2d. In other words, the average consumer in Scotland is paying 25 per cent. more for gas compared with the average in England and Wales. If this trend had continued for many years, it would have been one matter; but it has got worse and worse. When I first came to the House I asked the then Minister if he was satisfied with a situation whereby the differential was about 10 per cent. I asked when it became 14 per cent. and I asked again when it became 19 per cent. Now we are at the stage when the price of gas in Scotland is 25 per cent. more than the average for England and Wales, that answer being given in official figures on 13th May. I would suggest in all seriousness that it is an outrage for this Minister or any other to suggest that Scottish Members should give freedom of action for several years to the Gas Board to go merrily on with their policies—and highly efficient I am sure they all are—until there is a reconsideration of the policy of differential fuel prices, which are having such a savage effect on Scottish consumers and Scottish industry.
  Mr. Eadie: Is it not true that the cost to industrial gas users in Scotland is cheaper than it is in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Taylor: That is not my information, but I have great respect for the

  637
  hon. Gentleman's opinions so I will check on it. That is not the information I was given nor is it what I got from the reports. If this is the case, then for the domestic user the differential must be still greater because the figure I quoted was the average price per therm. I know that the hon. Gentleman always does his homework, and if he is right the differential for the domestic user is even greater.
  This is; a serious question which I hope the Minister will reconsider before we approve this Bill.
  On the question of electricity, there is the proposal that the South of Scotland and North of Scotland Electricity Boards should be able to borrow money abroad. I would suggest that one of the main reasons why it is necessary for this industry in Scotland to look for money abroad and why it cannot be self-financing is that the Government policies on fuel differential are adding so substantially to their costs. I will quote briefly from the Annual Report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, published recently, where it is stated on page 3 that:
  "The average price of coal to the Board is about £1 a ton higher than the average price paid for coal used in electricity generation in England and Wales…"
  In an article in the Scotsman at about the same time it was said that the differential between the coal prices to the Scottish Electricity Boards and to the English and Welsh ones was between 20s. and 34s. lOd. per ton.
  Is the Minister happy with a trend in which the South of Scotland Electricity Board has; to go to the gnomes of Zurich to ask for money which it would not require if we had a reasonable, sensible, just and fair policy of coal prices and differentials? This problem is getting worse and I, for one, am not prepared to approve of the Bill while such a situation continues.
  As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) knows, this is not a problem created by this Government. It has existed for many years, but it has been getting worse. When we consider the facts as regards another industry, that in the Benson Report on the steel industry, it was said that:
  " if British fuel prices go on climbing as they have over the past ten years, ' some
  638
  long-established United Kingdom steelmaking areas—for example, Scotland—may be put in hazard.'"
  The effect is seen of the policies which are being pursued at the present time and which have been pursued for years, but which are getting worse. I appeal to the Minister, before he goes ahead to ask for such a large sum as this, to reconsider the whole question of differential prices. It is no joke for the Scottish consumer, it is no joke for Scottish industry, and it is rather foolish for the Government to give generous assistance, as they do and as previous Governments have, to Scottish industry if so much is taken away by the present policies of the nationalised industries.
  We also see the gas industry looking for money which will be used in connection with making coke and smokeless fuel and we have exactly the same problem of differentials with this. Many of my own constituents in Cathcart—and I am sure this is true of the constituents of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian—have had to convert recently because of smoke control orders. They have been put in the position, encouraged by the Secretary of State for Scotland, with all his enthusiasm, of having to convert freely to the use of smokeless fuel. Yet we have a situation in which the price of that fuel in Scotland has greatly increased as compared with that in England and Wales. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has heard this on many occasions. I ask him to accept that this is a serious problem for Scotland, which his own figures about the gas industry show is getting worse. The temporary effect of this price increase or the next does not matter a great deal. We know the facts, and the problem is desperately serious, so I hope that, before the Government approve this Measure, they will seriously consider the prices of gas, coal, smokeless fuels, all these products of nationalised industries in Scotland.
  I hope that it will be accepted that I am attacking not the Labour Government in particular but a policy which I think is wrong. If we accept the need for differentials, why do we say that Scotland is one area and that there will be a uniform price for gas there? If we accept the implications of an economic price everywhere, there should be different

  639
  prices in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and Stornoway. Surely the time has come to say, "If we have a national industry, let us have a national price, and let the appalling differentials, which are causing so much concern and damage in Scotland, disappear once and for all." I make the Minister a simple offer: if he will accept my views on price differentials, I will accept his Bill.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: Without fear of contradiction, I can say that the Second Reading of this Bill has provided a wide-ranging debate on nearly every aspect of fuel policy. The Opposition Amendment has ensured that certain speeches showing specific concern for the problems of the coal industry have been considered in the context of the Bill when they might not otherwise have been. It is surprising how not one speech has given outspoken support to the Bill. I must declare an interest, in that I am associated with companies concerned with gas, producing heating equipment and many aspects of fuel. These contacts may allow me to speak with some knowledge and perhaps a little authority.
  The Conservative case in this debate is practical and clear. We believe in cheap fuel and also welcome the discovery of natural gas, and we want it fully used and exploited to the benefit of the nation, of industry, business and the domestic consumer—and, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), even in Scotland.
  However, we say plainly that, in the nation's present financial and economic position, after three and a half years of Socialist Government, a drastic reduction is needed in the level of Government expenditure both above and below the line. We must ensure a greater increase in the overall level of investment in the private sector and, therefore, obviously, a corresponding decrease in the ratio of investment in the public sector. Lastly, we believe that an increasing control and investigation by Parliament of public expenditure and investment should be encouraged rather than limited. It is against these criteria that I wish to judge the debate.
  I first of all pay a tribute, which has not been paid yet, to the previous Minis-
  640
  ter of Power. Whatever we may say, it took a particularly courageous Minister to introduce this White Paper and it is fair and proper that the House should pay tribute to him. Of course, we did not have a debate on the White Paper. The present Minister said that we have been around this in many ways, and we have, but he and the House must agree that there has not been approval or a full discussion of the electricity, gas or nuclear power concepts of that White Paper. It is with that as a background that this Bill must be considered.
  This Bill increases the borrowing power of a single nationalised industry by 100 per cent.—100 per cent. It increases its immediate loan authority by one-third and then, with that sum, allows a standby borrowing of another 50 per cent. of the authorised sum. I have done a little research into this and I do not believe that I can be corrected when I say that this is the biggest single percentage standby which has ever been given. It is not the biggest amount—the electricity industry had that previously; but it is the biggest percentage standby, a 50 per cent. standby. I believe that this is more, in the economic situation, than this Labour Government or any Government ought to ask the House to consider.
  We are considering a reasoned Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said he had demanded that the Opposition shall have a reasoned Amendment. I am delighted to say, although he is not here at the moment, that he found himself in very good company. We were ahead of him, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) had been discussing the exact wording of the Amendment for some while.
  However, it is important that it should be made most clear that the reasoned Amendment is not an attack on the gas industry or indeed the electricity industry. The gas industry, after all, over the last five years has been a fast speed example of brilliant marketing, while managerially and industrially what earlier might have been considered a depressed or out-dated industry has resurrected itself, and I believe that it deserves considerable credit and considerable congratulation for what it has achieved.
  I should like to attempt to clear up one matter which seems to have been

  641
  in doubt during the debate and that is the question of the reserves of natural gas which appear to be evident in the North Sea. As I understand this matter, all the four commercial fields have recoverable reserves estimated by the Gas Council at about 23½ trillion—that is the American figure, which is a million million—cubic feet, enough to maintain an average flow of over 3,000 million cubic feet a day. This is on a depletion of 20 years. It is probable, I believe—and these are the figures which have been used by the Gas Council—that the reserves will last from between 25 to 27 years. In addition to this there are significant discoveries by other companies Signal, Placid and B.P., in addition to the West Sole, Leman Bank, Indefatigable and Hewett fields. It is important to have these figures on the record and they are substantiated by paragraph 13, although not in as great detail, of the White Paper on fuel policy.
  I turn to the matter of investment forecasting. This is, after all, the basis of the Bill. If it is possible to forecast future requirements accurately there is no reason why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. But what are the examples? Let me use one or two.
  A Government publication only two and a half years old says quite blandly in paragraph 55 that
  "throughout the public sector estimates of expenditure represent programmes rather than forecasts."
  It goes on to propound that the fixed investment in gas is expected to rise sharply in 1966 and then to remain about the same level for the rest of the decade. The figures are £140 million in 1968, £143 million in 1969 and £149 million in 1970. Although only about 30 months old, those figures have little relevance—indeed, they have no relevance at all—to the arguments now being adduced by the Gas Council.
  I admit that the figures come from the National Plan of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), but they show how terrifyingly inaccurate such prognostications can be in only two and a half years. The national growth rate is well below what was indicated in the National Plan, and its estimates are about 150 per cent. out. I accept that they were not predicated on the aspects of natural gas—I have no wish to make a debating point of this—but nobody can
  642
  be certain for a period of five to 10 years that there will not be other breaks through in fuel policies which may not put some of this forecasting considerably out of date.
  Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman was honourable in declaring his interest at the beginning of his remarks. Following his argument, I, as Minister, am bound to accept what the Phillips company has told me about its forecasts. I think that the company was right and honourable to do that, and I accept them. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that I must not believe anybody's forecasts?
  Mr. Emery: No. I declared my interest and, following the right hon. Gentleman's question, there is, of course, no doubt about the reserve figures and that they are the best which any oil company can give the right hon. Gentleman. I have been questioning whether the investment prognostications made by Ministries—I have given the prognostications in the National Plan—are likely to be as accurate in two or three years' time as they are at the moment. There is proof that they have not been accurate. If I were to pursue some of my personal interests I might be said to be arguing that we should be investing more rather than less. I am trying to think of the national interest and not of any sectional or individual interest.
  I return to the question of investment forecasts, with particular reference to the forecasts outlined by the Gas Council and mentioned by the Minister. We see £1,221 million on fixed assets, £276 million on the conversion of consumer appliances, £44 million on loans for Gas Council North Sea prospecting and £63 million on financing and expanding turnover. This gives a total of £1,604 million. On top of that we have present borrowing at 31st March, which is already established, and this brings the figure to £2,667 million. However, we have finance from the Gas Council from its resources of £500 million and from this Bill of £2,400 million. This leaves, on those calculations a figure in hand of £233 million for extra use and not £237 million as the P.R. statement of the Gas Council of 8th May made clear. Nor does it leave a figure of £250 million as suggested in the Ministry of Power's Press Notice No. 5508.

  643
  I quote these figures not in an attempt to be clever with small amounts, but to show that we are talking about such vast sums that they can get entirely out of hand. It seems that £4 million here or £13 million there does not matter. It should matter to Parliament and we should pay special attention to the whole subject.
  I come to a matter which has not received any attention; overall investment in gas—not just for the Gas Council but for the industry as a whole. The Gas Council's figure of £1,604 million is correct. On top of that we have to begin estimating what private industry will be putting into the development of gas.
  On the production, piping and development of the fields and processing, I cannot be more accurate than to say that it will be between £300 million and £500 million. It is impossible to be more accurate over a five-year period. Let us say that it will be about £400 million. On exploration, surely the Gas Council's figure of £44 million can be multiplied by six or seven to get somewhere about £250 million or £300 million. Industry and the piped assets are likely to bring a total figure of £2,400 million to £2,700 million as a necessary investment for North Sea development. Compare that with the overall industrial investment. In the private sector last year it was £3,458 million. In the manufacturing industry, according to the Board of Trade, it was estimated at £1,160 million.
  Taking the figures I have given over a five-year period, this means that the overall investment for gas will have to run at about £500 million nationally out of the investment "cake". Is this House absolutely certain that that is the proper level and that we should have as high a level in one industry? I do not know, but we have not debated this. It has not been particularly apparent in the arguments put forward either by the Gas Council or the Government that that high level of investment without overall limited resources is the right and proper amount.
  Presumably, we still hold to the Letter of Intent. It was suggested that this year the investment should be left at £1,000 million—one billion as it is termed in the Letter. That makes one wonder whether the Government are getting out of step with what the country can afford at this
  644
  moment. This is something which the House has to consider.
  Mr. Leadbitter: It is noticeable that the hon. Member is expressing concern about the possibility of the Government getting out of step with investment. The hon. Member is summing up for the Opposition in an important debate. Will he tell the House, after special consideration of this Bill, what his party thinks the level of investment should be.
  Mr. Emery: As I am summing up an important debate, I will tell the hon. Member what I think the investment should be. That is in part of my conclusions which he will hear at the end of my speech.
  I turn to the question of obsolescence and conservation. I ask the Government whether they have considered fully the factor of conservation. Is the run-down of this natural gas asset at a level at present estimated between 20 and 25 years right? Is it accepted by the House? We have not debated it.
  Mr. J. T. Price: It is not accepted by the Gas Council either. That should be on the record. The Gas Council does not postulate a figure anywhere near the figure which the hon. Member has given.
  Mr. Emery: I thought the figures I quoted earlier were the Gas Council's figures and that they would be confirmed by the Minister. Would we not require a much smaller capital programme if the reserves were to be run down over a longer period, over 40 years or even more? Would not this allow a better use of existing capital equipment and a more economical rundown of some of our other national assets, which was made so apparent by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who spoke with such authority on the electricity industry?
  On the point of obsolescence made so evident by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), instead of £300 million for plant yet not amortised and which will have to be abolished, will not the total writedown of plant which has not finished its useful life be about £600 million to £700 million? If so, we should be told. It is very important.

  645
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) made a most thoughtful and helpful speech. We should pay credit to him for the work he does as Chairman of Sub-Committee B of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said that he was not concerned about the Bill, because the matter would come forward on a Vote of Supply. I must correct the hon. Gentleman and make it apparent that, if this was on foreign borrowing, which the Bill would allow, there would be no Vote of Supply and his argument would fall.
  The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) spoke about outrageously optimistic forecasts. I defend the members of the Gas Council. I believe these forecasts have often been made by the Press and have never been backed by statements made by leaders of the gas industry.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said that he thought that the right place to consider the borrowing powers of the gas industry was not on the Floor of the House but in Committee. He must realise, as a Whip of the Labour Party—[Interruption.]—I mean the Liberal Party. I was thinking that the hon Gentleman had moved over. He must realise that with our present Parliamentary procedures the only way of dealing with this in depth, with all Members able to participate, is on the Floor of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) were right to discuss the use of rigs in the North Sea. It is important that nobody should be discouraged from continuing with exploration.
  I want to ask one direct question which has not been raised. Is any of this borrowing power to be used to increase the manufacturing scope of the Gas Council or of the Gas Boards? It would be possible. Powers exist. I should like a categorical assurance that that will not be so. The strengthening of the Gas Council, which we welcome, was originally suggested by the Select Committee in 1961–62.
  I turn to the borrowing powers from abroad.
  646
  "You cannot go, cap in hand, to the central bankers of Europe … and maintain your freedom of action. … The central bankers will, before long, be demanding that Britain puts her house in order."
  That is a quotation that hon. Members opposite might recognise. There has been condemnation of some of these central bankers and perhaps the Left-wing, with which the Parliamentary Secretary had some connection at one time, should be condemning this short-term palliative in the Bill, because that is all it is. It is an ability to obtain extra foreign exchange which will assist our balance of payments today. But in the long term that money must be repaid, and then there will be the opposite effect, a harmful effect on the Exchange Equalisation Account.
  Two necessary points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, South—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Worcestershire, South.
  Mr. Emery: I should think that my hon. Friend may have a shire all unto himself. My hon. Friend pointed out that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have foreign capital investment, foreign capital assets and foreign currency earnings.
  We must consider the long-term effect. This borrowing by the Socialists is likely to leave a millstone, a hidden depth charge, to upset the balance of payments at some time in the future, when a Conservative Government will have to put it right.
  The Minister was all sweet reasonableness in suggesting that we did not divide on this matter. He was described, I think, as a Pickwick. Without meaning to be unkind, I would perhaps describe him as the greatest smiling Parliamentary cherub that we have in the House. But his blandishments fall on very stony ground here. We argue for more Parliamentary control. But he and I know that the control he wishes will only be by an order which could be debated for only 90 minutes.
  Too much money, too quickly, with little real financial prospectus showing exactly how it will be used, is our real condemnation of the Bill. What we want is extra borrowing and investment not by order but by a Bill which will allow us to have the necessary Parliamentary control, and that is what our Amendment would do.

  647
  I do not believe that any self-respecting bank manager, after the Government's own impoverished pleas, would grant a 100 per cent. increase in a fantastic overdraft of £1,200 million for vast spending over a five-year period without an adequate estimate of likely return. It has been evident from speech after speech that we have not had that.
  This practice is precisely what successive Governors of the Bank of England have rightly condemned as the root and branch failure of the Government's economic policy. By granting these borrowing powers we shall relinquish any real further Parliamentary control of this vast amount of spending. Parliament is being asked to underwrite an estimate without an adequate prospectus.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support us in the Lobbies on our reasoned Amendment.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): To some extent I forecast the kind of points that would be raised and did my best to obtain information before the debate. I shall seek to answer as many points, both general and specific, as I can. We shall study the OFFICIAL REPORT and, as it our practice, do our best to reply within the next few days to any points with which I cannot deal now.
  I shall try to avoid turning the debate into a screaming match, at any rate from this side of the Dispatch Box.
  Several themes have come out in the debate. The main ones have been on the issue of the range of spending, whether it is necessary to authorise so much; the question of Parliamentary and Government control over spending, or what some describe as overspending; the impact on other industries; and the efficiency and capacity of the industry to absorb the gas for which it is planning, and to plan investment policies appropriately.
  The last direct question put to me was whether any of the moneys raised under the borrowing powers would be used for manufacturing purposes. I take the question to refer to diversification of manufacture and not necessarily to plant con-
  648
  nected with the industry's central activity. The answer is that there is to be no change of policy.
  We have had a number of questions on the Scottish position, and I know the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not pursue them all in detail. Whatever views and arguments there might be about postalising prices, it is not correct to repeat so categorically that Scotland is worse off with regard to gas price differentials than all other parts of the country. It is not. At least one other area, the South-Western, has a bigger differential than Scotland. Whatever the merits or demerits of postalisation of prices, it is not correct to assume that if prices were postalised the development areas would benefit. Some might, others would not. I have said this before.
  I was congratulated by the hon. Member on a previous occasion when I made this point. For the central subject matter of the debate, natural gas, there will be a postalised price for bulk supply to area boards if that is the correct term to use. I hope we can get at least one little smile from the hon. Member on this point.
  A number of questions were put by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) while I was out of the Chamber. Earlier in the debate he quoted evidence given by the Gas Council to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, at paragraph 47. The industry's investment total was £1,221 million for the five years from 1968–69. This is expressed in the evidence as investment in fixed assets. This is the same as on the top of page 15 of the pamphlet, "Investment in Natural Gas", and to that sum must be added: North Sea exploration £44 million; working capital £63 million; conversion of consumers £276 million. These figures make the total of £1,604 million which he queried.
  There was another query from the hon. Member on a figure quoted by Sir Henry Jones relating to the cost of conversion per consumer. I understand the figure of £10 relates to a cooker in the context to which he was referring, but there are other costs which have to be added for other kinds of equipment and which are included in the figure of £30. One must take account of industrial and other commercial users whose equipment will also have to be converted, and the cost of

  649
  this must be included in the average figure.
  To deal with the headings I have given as being the main themes of the debate, the first one is: why the range of expenditure which has been proposed? Merely to meet the past rate of increase in demand for manufactured gas, instead of natural gas from the North Sea, would cost between £200 million and £250 million a year. This is on the basis of an annual rate of increase of 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. in recent years, and a much faster rate of increase which is forecast for future years. There will be a rapid increase, and therefore we must expect a major slice of investment per year. So long as there is a strong demand for gas there must be heavy investment in the industry. With the discovery of North Sea gas the amount of investment has to be increased above £200 million to £250 million a year, but the increase is expected to produce important benefits.
  It has been a rather negative debate in spite of the detailed arguments deployed, particularly by hon. Members on the other side. Not enough has been brought out in debate about how the industry is expected to benefit. First, there will be savings in resources used by the gas industry. Secondly, the industry will be supplied with increasing quantities of modern, relatively low-cost fuel, and it will be cheaper. Thirdly, there will be a reduction in the cost of foreign exchange to meet the country's energy needs. These things have been discussed at some length in the White Paper which has been referred to many times this evening, as well as in other speeches and debates in different parts of the country. I am surprised that we still hear statements that are contrary to some of the elementary points which have been established in the White Paper studies.
  The next main heading which I drew out of the debate questioned the efficiency of Governmental and Parliamentary control of expenditure. One is guided in the control of expenditure in the gas industry, just as in other industries within the purview of the Department, by the White Paper dealing with the financial obligations of the industries.
  The procedure which is followed centres around five general points. Each year, the Department discuss in detail the
  650
  capital expenditure for a period five years ahead on a rolling programme. We fix the upper limit of expenditure for two years ahead having examined the programmes of capital investment and projects being put forward. The Department base borrowings on reasoned estimates submitted by the industry each year. The Department must be kept informed of capital being invested or proposed to be invested in projects which are considered to have too low a return in relation to the objects laid down in the White Paper. It is our task, in overseeing the industry's responsibilities, to ensure that its organisation scrutinised capital expenditure properly.
  I know that that is dealing with it in a few sentences, but I ask hon. Members to accept that whatever inadequacies they may feel in the extent to which Parliament can oversee massive expenditures involved in a modern State, whether it be what is before us now or on other occasions, the Department does a very thorough job. We have personnel travelling all over the country each year investigating these matters with the boards of the various industries under our responsibility. To talk as if this one debate tonight is the full extent of our supervision of expenditure is misleading. I am sure that hon. Members do not intend it to be so.
  The importance of Parliamentary control or scrutiny was stressed by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), who made much play with the £237 million contingency margin included in the figures before us. The borrowing powers in the Bill aim at meeting the industry's needs for about five years. Even in the most stable circumstances for the industry, it is difficult to forecast borrowing needs accurately, and some margin for contingencies is reasonable and common practice in small as well as big industry, public or private.
  As the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said, at present there is more than unusual uncertainty. That is no reason for cutting down on one's margin for contingencies. I would have thought that it is a reason for making sure that provision is made for items which may be necessary, always with the proviso that there is adequate Government scrutiny and control in the approvals and permissions given.

  651
  The uncertainty is affecting the industry, and that must affect its long term investment plans. We do not know the full extent of the amount of North Sea gas which will become available, and I will have more to say about that in a moment. Markets cannot be known fully, nor can beach prices, despite the fact that some have been fixed—one important one quite recently. The industry does not yet know how peak demands will be met when natural gas comes on stream fully from the North Sea. There must be a margin to allow for changes in the pace, direction and content of the capital investment for the industry in the years ahead.
  That does not mean that the money will be used automatically. The Minister must ask the House to approve an Order raising the borrowing limit. He will have to justify a new figure for the next three years to the House. If less than £800 million becomes necessary, a smaller sum will be proposed.
  This is not the first time that this has happened. It has happened with the electricity industry in the past and with other industries with which Parliament is concerned.
  The limit in the Bill is on borrowings over about five years and does not directly control either borrowing or expenditure in the next year or two. If the Opposition wish to question the industry's plans for expenditure on borrowing, they can do so by debate on the annual White Paper on loans made by the National Loans Fund, which shows the authorised borrowing or expenditure for the year, or they can do so by debating the industry's annual report and accounts.
  There are always other occasions on which there can be Parliamentary scrutiny of this kind of expenditure. My right hon. Friend's request for an immediate increase of only £400 million is in order that Parliament may have an earlier opportunity than it would otherwise have done to scrutinise the expenditure and policy of the industry because of the kind of uncertainties to which hon. Members have referred.
  I have been asked about foreign borrowing. This power is being taken at the request of the two industries concerned so that, if opportunities arise of borrowing more advantageously than from the
  652
  National Loans Fund, they will be able to take advantage of them. In so far as the national interest is involved in incurring obligations in foreign exchange, it would be covered by the kind of provisions that such borrowing must be on terms and from persons specified by the Minister. Again, there will be detailed control. Just to give the authority does not mean that the money will be raised. This provision is designed to remove a statutory obstacle to such action should it ever be considered desirable, as is the case with the other part of the Bill dealing with the removal of obstacles to assisting foreign Governments in technical work. This, too, does not mean that the money or the services will be provided. It merely gives power for them to be provided if the industries so wish.
  Much has been made of the uncertainty of the rate of absorption with regard to the supply of natural gas. Despite the continued doubts expressed or implied in the debate, the known reserves—not those yet to be investigated and covered—are estimated to be sufficient to provide 3,000 million cubic feet per day and more available on beach to this country in the years beyond 1971. It may well go above that figure. The plans that are now in hand and the powers which are being put forward in the Bill are in order that this work may proceed and that the capacity of the industry should be to take on full steam up to something like 4,000 million cubic feet per day.
  Whether or not this will be absorbed into the economy is a matter of marketing and not a matter of investment power and authority for laying down the framework by which one can use the gas. This will be decided from time to time on the Minister's authority, subject to the kind of Parliamentary scrutiny I have referred to as the system and the markets develop. But we know that we can reach the figure I have quoted by the end of this decade. This is hard fact and I hope that there will be no further doubts about this.
  Mr. Emery: Supposition.
  Mr. Freeson: I wish the hon. Gentleman would not throw the word "supposition" across the Table. He himself confirmed what I am saying in his own speech. This is not supposition. These are known reserves. What may be supposition is how much capacity may become available with further investigation.
  Mr. Emery: What I was saying was supposition—and it is—is how much we can market by 1970. That is not a matter of fact. This may be a market report and on the most extensive investigation but it would be wrong to call it fact. It is supposition.
  Mr. Fireeson: I had hoped that it would not be necessary to state the obvious. One cannot market what one has not got. If we want supplies on tap to the country, we have to have the grid and plant. We cannot sell the gas if we have not got it. We have to have investment powers to get the grid into operation and all the servicing required to get natural gas into the country so that it can be marketed. This will be an evolving and growing policy. It will be subject to control by the industry and the Government and will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny as I have indicated.
  This kind of playing around with words, coming to the House and saying: "We are in favour of natural gas being discovered—" which is rather an obvious thing to say, "we are in favour of bringing it ashore and using it in the economy", and then arguing against the means by which it can be done—this is what we have been getting from hon. Members opposite. We will not turn this into a series of debating points. There is a job to be done and we want the powers in order that the job may be done. That is why we come to Parliament.
  The question of the rate of absorption must be borne in mind in relation to the kind of prices that will be obtained. I have been asked whether we are quite sure that it is right to have as rapid a rate of absorption of natural gas as we can possibly get. The answer is "Yes", and anyone who has studied the White Paper will have seen the kind of examination given to this question—the kind of factors we took into account in drawing this policy conclusion. I have mentioned one important factor, not the most important one, namely the question of the price one obtains. The more rapidly one can absorb this natural gas into the economy, the more satisfactory will be the price level obtained by the Gas Council, and in turn by the ultimate consumers, domestic and industrial.
  If the gas industry is to increase by two, three or four times over the years
  654
  ahead on the lines I have suggested, the price will have to be attractive by the standard of the prices of other fuels. We think that North Sea gas will prove a much cheaper fuel. We have said so in the White Paper, and we stand by that. Some boards have already made small reductions in prices in areas which have already been converted to natural gas. Similar reductions may be made in other areas as conversion proceeds. It will be four years or so before the new system of supply is well-established, and most consumers are converted—and I hope the Opposition too.
  Before then there is a great deal of investment which has to be financed. Existing towns' gas supply has to be kept going as we move over to natural gas. This will prevent sweeping price reductions in the immediate future, but one thing is certain: the gas will be cheaper than manufactured gas and there will be foreign exchange savings to the country. In the next few years the real beneficiary is likely to be industry in so far as special contracts can be negotiated for large-scale demand with a cut rate factor or on a seasonal or interruptible basis, but ultimately consumers will benefit through prices which are lower absolutely or in relation to other fuels. In real terms we are certain that there will be a reduction over the years. It will not take place until we are fully on stream into the new national grid.
  Hon. Members have talked about the impact of natural gas on other fuels. It is bound to have an impact, but it should not be exaggerated. We estimated in the White Paper that by 1970 the use of North Sea gas would be equivalent to about 5 per cent. of the total energy needs of the country. This represents about 17 million tons of coal equivalent, which is in turn 1,300 million cubic feet a day. Even by 1975, assuming that additional discoveries raise availability to the 4,000 million cubic feet I referred to earlier, its share will only be about 15 per cent.
  Natural gas is coming into an expanding and changing energy market. Coal, which has been referred to, is already being displaced by oil in the gas industry. The main effect of the North Sea gas discoveries is to provide another indigenous fuel as an alternative to oil, displacing coal. Members have spoken

  655
  of the consequences of this to the coal industry. I want to stress, as we have done on previous occasions, that most natural gas will go to the premium markets where it will mainly displace oil.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind my saying it, but it was quite wrong, particularly at this time in the light of the industry, for her to raise further unnecessary anxieties in the coal industry and the coal communities. This has been made perfectly clear in the past. The use of natural gas in power stations was also touched upon. In this connection I can confirm what has been said earlier, that there has been this experimental conversion at Hams Hall power station and there has been an application to undertake a similar conversion at the power station at South Denes. These applications will be considered in the light of the criteria laid down in the White Paper for matters of this kind.
  Lastly, I would like to turn to the general implications that came from many of the speeches we have had, and which I have found very regrettable. I suppose that it is understandable that in a debate on an Amendment of the kind we have had, dealing with large sums of public money against a background of many years of built-in prejudice against public industries, we should have the kind of negative carping comments made by a number of hon. Members opposite. I want to make clear that in my view whatever room there is for improvement —and undoubtedly there is—the Gas Industry has nothing of which it need be ashamed with regard to its record in productivity and changing its managerial techniques.
  There was a constant theme throughout the speeches from the other side of the House during the course of the debate which gave the impression that we have here an industry which is not doing its job properly, is full of uncertainty and is incapable. This, whether hon. Gentlemen opposite intended it or not, was the kind of impression given by some speeches. This industry like the coal and electricity industries has a good record with regard to efficiency. It is playing an important part in modernising Britain's
  656
  economy. It is now handling an exciting new revolution in introducing North Sea gas which will have major implications for domestic and industrial consumers. This industry has already pulled itself up by its bootstraps, changing from coal carbonisation to oil conversion in a few years and carving out for itself an important new place in the energy economy in the last few years, after a time when many people had described it as a dying industry.
  Over the last six years its manpower productivity has gone up by 7 per cent. per year and the forecast is that it will increase by 15 per cent. a year over the next five years. Major improvements in productivity have been made with a much smaller labour force. There has been a reduction from 140,000 to 124,000 in the total number of personnel within the industry. I could go on to list a whole series of other things in the computer field, in management techniques, organisation, supply and services to consumers, market research and a whole range of things in which this industry is "on the ball".
  Whatever improvements need to be made, we as a Department, the Gas Council and the N.B.P.I., on behalf of the Government generally, are looking at further ways in which the industry can be improved and of helping the industry to improve its organisation and methods. These are the kind of things we should be trying to bring out from time to time rather than constantly carping against the industry.
  This is the kind of thing that is also to be brought out in regard to the great campaign which the industry is waging to bring natural gas into the economy of the country. There has been some commendation this evening for the rôle which the exploring companies in the North Sea have played in this whole business. I do not fall behind anybody so far as that is concerned but due and excellent credit should be given for the job that has been done by the gas industry itself. It has a good record in this as it has in other things and it should be given the opportunity to get on with the job on which it has embarked so that we can switch over to natural gas fully by the early 1970s.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 210.

  Division No. 157.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gower, Raymond

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grant, Anthony

  Nott, John

  Astor, John

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Grieve, Percy

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Percival, Ian

  Balniel, Lord

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Prior, j. M. L.

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pym, Francis

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Boardman, Tom

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Hiley, Joseph

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Brewis, John

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Holland, Philip

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hordem, Peter

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Hunt, John

  Royle, Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Russell, sir Ronald

  Campbell, Gordon

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Silvester, Frederick

  Clegg, Walter

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cooke, Robert

  Kirk, Peter

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Speed, Keith

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Stainton, Keith

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lane, David

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Temple, John M.

  Dance, James

  MacArthur, Ian

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  McMaster, Stanley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Maginnis, John E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Doughty, Charles

  Maude, Angus

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Drayson, C. B.

  Mawby, Ray

  Wall, Patrick

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Walters, Dennis

  Eden, Sir John

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Webster, David

  Emery, Peter

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Monro, Hector

  Wills, Sir Cerald (Bridgwater)

  Farr, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fisher, Nigel

  More, Jasper

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Wright, Esmond

  Foster, Sir John

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wylie, N. R.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Murton, Oscar

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Goodhew, Victor

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Brooks, Edwin

  Dickens, James

  Albu, Austen

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Doig, Peter

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Driberg, Tom

  Allen, Scholefield

  Brown,Bob(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Archer, Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cant, R. B.

  Eadie, Alex

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Chapman, Donald

  Ellis, John

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Coe, Denis

  English, Michael

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Coleman, Donald

  Ennals, David

  Barnett, Joel

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Baxter, William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Beaney, Alan

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bence, Cyril

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bennett, James, (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Blackburn, F.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Ford, Ben

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Forrester, John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Freeson, Reginald

  Booth, Albert

  Dempsey, James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Dewar, Donald

  Gardner, Tony

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Gourlay, Harry

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Richard, Ivor

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rose, Paul

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mapp, Charles

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert

  Hamling, William

  Marquand, David

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Hannan, William

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Haseldine, Norman

  Millan, Bruce

  Slater, Joseph

  Hazell, Bert

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Small, William

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Snow, Julian

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Homer, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Murray, Albert

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Howie, W.

  Neal, Harold

  Stonehouse, John

  Hoy, James

  Newens, Stan

  Swingler, Stephen

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Taverne, Dick

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hunter, Adam

  Oram, Albert E.

  Tinn, James

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Tomney, Frank

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Orme, Stanley

  Urwin, T. W.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Oswald, Thomas

  Varley, Eric G

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn, Charles

  Wallace, George

  Kelley, Richard

  Pardoe, John

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Lawson, George

  Park, Trevor

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Weitzman, David

  Ledger, Ron

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Whitaker, Ben

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Pentland, Norman

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  McBride, Neil

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  McCann, John

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  MacColl, James

  Probert, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rankin, John

  Yates, Victor

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Rees, Merlyn

  McGuire, Michael

  Reynolds, G. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &Crom'ty)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. J. D. Concannon.

  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and on the Town and Country Planning Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Gunter.]

  GAS AND ELECTRICITY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the statutory limits imposed on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowing by the Gas Council and Area Gas Boards; to provide for the borrowing by the Electricity Council, the Scottish Electricity Boards and the Gas Council of money in foreign currency, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) such increases in the sums falling to be paid out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund as may result from provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  (a) increasing to £2,400 million the limit imposed on the aggregate amount out-
  662
  standing in respect of borrowings by the Gas Council or Area Gas Boards; or

  (b) consequentially, increasing the sums that may be advanced to the Gas Council under section 2 of the Electricity and Gas Act 1963;

  (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to fulfil any guarantee by the Treasury of the principal of and interest on securities issued by the Electricity Council, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the South of Scotland Electricity Board or the Gas Council by virtue of any provision of the said Act of the present Session authorising the borrowing of foreign currency by the issue of securities;

  (3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums repaid to the Treasury by virtue of any provision of the said Act of the present Session in respect of sums falling within the last foregoing paragraph.—[Mr. Freeson.]

  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

    Clause 13.
    NEW PROVISION AS TO ENFORCEMENT NOTICES.
    10.11 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Nial MacDermot): I beg to move Amendment 23, in page 11, line 22, at end insert:
    (3) Where an enforcement notice relates to a breach of planning control consisting in—

    (a) the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land; or

    (b) the failure to comply with any condition or limitation which relates to the carrying out of such operations and subject to which planning permission was granted for the development of that land; or

    (c) the making without planning permission of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling-house,

    it may be served only within the period of four years from the date of the breach.
    Will it be convenient to discuss with this, Mr. Speaker, the four Amendments to the Amendment?
    Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain whether you have selected all the Amendments to the Minister's Amendment and, if so, whether you would permit a Division on any of them. We would wish to divide on the fourth Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have not selected formally any of the four Amendments which are to be taken with this particular Amendment, but he has made representations to me and I am willing to allow a Division on the Amendment which he chooses, which will be the fourth, I understand.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it in the best interests of the House that the news is running round that the Government have
    664
    decided to keep the House until five o'clock in the morning to discuss these matters? I do not feel that it is in the best interests of the House that this sort of thing should happen.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
    Mr. MacDermot: May I hasten to assure the hon. Member and the House that the Government have decided nothing of the sort. We shall be delighted to complete this business by midnight, if we have the co-operation of the House. It may take a little longer.
    Mr. Page: That is for the Opposition to decide.
    Mr. MacDermot: I hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) say that it is for the Opposition to decide how long they wish to debate these matters, and I quite accept that.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the Town and Country Planning Bill and an Amendment.
    Mr. MacDermot Mr. MacDermot rose—
    Sir Gerald Nabarro: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. MacDermot: No, we want to make progress.
    The Amendment is to meet an undertaking given in Committee to confine the abolition of the four-year rule on enforcement notices to those cases in which the mischief is established. I undertook to restore the four-year rule in the case of enforcement notices relating to any breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out of building or any other operations on land for a change to residential use.
    10.15 p.m.
    One slight qualification has been introduced to which attention is called in the first of the Opposition Amendments, and that is that paragraph (c) refers to a change of use to use as a single dwelling house. The reason for this is that changes of use to multi-occupation can have undesirable social as well as planning consequences. They come within the general mischief in that they are often difficult for the planning authority to

    665
    detect and I understand that there have in practice, been cases of this kind of development in which the four-year rule has been a barrier, preventing the planning authorities from exercising the control which is patently desirable on social as well as planning grounds. This is the sort of abuse which can lead to an area's deterioration into a slum or near slum and I hope that the House will agree that this is a proper limitation.
    The second Amendment would include in the kinds of unauthorised development to which the four-year rule would continue to apply a change to a use not inconsistent with the use of that building as noted in the valuation list. It is difficult to see what the wording means, but it seems to refer to a minor change of use, which should be treated more leniently than a material change. If so, that is adequately covered by the Use Classes Order, but perhaps we can hear something about that. In addition, entries in the valuation list can become out of date between valuations and might not reflect current use.
    The third Amendment aims to spell out what is meant by the words "date of the breach" and I must advise the House that it is unnecessary. There is no similar definition in Section 45 of the 1962 Act, which contains the four-year rule, and it has long been established that the four years run from the date of the contravention.
    We would oppose the last Amendment, on which we have been told the Opposition's intention. The whole purpose of this abolition of the four-year rule would be largely defeated if we substituted for it a six-year rule.
    Mr. Hugh Rossi: First of all I should like to thank the Minister for the concessions he has made in the sense that he has tried to meet some of the objections which were made to the Bill, objections which were fully debated in the Standing Committee. He has met objections which he had himself considered as existing, although at the time of the Standing Committee he had not yet put them into legislative form. I think it is fair to say that the Minister from the very outset of the debate on this problem said that this presented
    "one of the more difficult problems in the Bill." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 12th March. 1968; c. 354.]
    666
    Therefore, the House will forgive me if I take a little time to outline the problem and indicate the views held by this side of the House on this problem.
    The principal Planning Act provides that if an enforcement notice is served by a local planning authority in respect of a breach of the development plan, because unauthorised development or a change of use has taken place, that enforcement notice cannot be effective if served after a four-year period. This follows what is an underlying principle in our legal system—and, indeed, I would venture to say, all legal systems— namely, that there must be a degree of stability and finality in the law, and that when a de facto situation becomes established it should not remain into infinity at risk of being upset.
    Therefore, we have in our law of contract a rule that if a claim of breach of a contract is not made within six years the person complaining of that breach has lost all remedy at law; the situation has existed for a period of time and the law deems that after that period of time has expired there must be finality to the question. We have similar provisions in our law of torts. When someone complains that he has suffered a civil injury at the hands of another then there must be finality in that situation and the person alleged to have committed the injury should not be at risk into infinity. The same principle is extended into our law on property. A man can come and squat on somebody else's land and enjoy it for 12 years and after that he will be deemed to be the owner; he will have acquired the ownership by adverse possession. Also in law rights of way, rights of light, rights to air can be acquired over other people's property if they have been enjoyed for a period of 20 years without complaint or legal process having been brought. It is considered that there must be finality at some point in time.
    This general principle which is found in all aspects of our legal system was brought into town planning procedures also, and it is for that reason that we have the four-year rule whereby if somebody develops property or changes the user of property contrary to the development plan then the local authority has three years in which to upset that situation. If it did not exercise its rights to

    667
    serve an enforcement notice then there was finality and the individual could continue to enjoy his development or his change of use without any risk at all at law. We feel that this is something which should continue in our system of law in town planning matters.
    The Minister, in the Standing Committee, said that there were two factors why he did not wish this to be so. The first factor was that of concealment; the second was that which he called intensification. On concealment he gave the example of someone converting a room in a house into an office—behind net curtains, to use his own phrase. He felt that it would be wrong, where this happened, for the local authority to be debarred after a period of four years from taking any action.
    On intensification, he gave the example where someone could leave one or two items of scrap metal lying in a field, say that that gave the right to use the field as a dumping ground and, after the four years had expired, to suddenly turn it into a scrap metal yard. It was felt in Standing Committee that both those matters were over-exaggerated. In any case, one must always weigh up the factors posited by the Minister against the other principle—the desirability of finality—and a judgment must be exercised as to which is the most important.
    On concealment, there are already in our legal system principles that the Minister could invoke and could incorporated into the planning law. He could say that the four-year period of limitation should not run if there has been concealment, if there has been an element of fraud, and that the period should run only from the time when the local authority actually knew of the breach or ought to have known of it. This is something well established in our legal system, and particularly in the law of tort.
    On the question of intensification, here again the Minister could simply have dealt with the matter on the de minimis principle—by saying that where there is a lump or two of iron in a field, then that is not deemed to change the user, and that a change takes place only when there is a substantial use contrary to the established existing use, and this would have met the question of intensification.
    668
    These are solutions to which the Minister has apparently not directed his mind. I concede that this would lead to greater complications from the point of view of Parliamentary drafting in that longer Clauses would be needed, but one would have thought that to exclude concealment and intensification along the lines I have proposed would have been a far better way than to abolish, virtually in its entirity, the concept that there must be a statutory limit beyond which rights cannot be infringed or rights that have been assumed cannot be taken away.
    It is for this reason that our fourth Amendment to the Government Amendment proposes that a six-year period of limitation should apply to each and every case not covered by the Minister's Amendments. We are adopting the period that the law recognises for breach of contract and most civil injuries in the realm of the law of tort. This period has been found to be most convenient and equitable and there is no reason why it should not be incorporated in the Bill.
    If finality of this kind is not incorporated, what are the likely consequences? There is the danger that local planning authorities will not do their work properly. They will not be as diligent as they might be to discover changes of uses and developments which have taken place in breach of their plan. If there is no time limit on them, they might be content to let a situation ride without doing anything about it until, perhaps, questions of compulsory purchase and compensation arise, and then decide to use this rule to avoid paying a higher degree of compensation. If they used it for that purpose, to allow it to be permissive for change of user and to exercise it only when questions of compensation arose would be inequitable. This could be a danger into which the Minister might lead us.
    10.30 p.m.
    Another question arising if there is no finality relates to transactions in land where the change of user or a development has taken place in contravention of a development plan. This was brought out in Committee. Conveyancing difficulties were raised with the Minister, but he intended to discount them. I have a great regard for the Minister of State. When he was practising as a distinguished member of the Bar, I valued his opinions

    669
    and advice very much, but on property matters he might listen to some hon. Members on this side of the House as perhaps we are a little more familinar with the day to day problems which arise.
    The Minister said that as far as he saw the problem it was a transitional one. He said:
    "The reference to a date in 1963 is made so that anyone who has achieved protection by four-year user will continue to enjoy it."
    He said that the problem will arise only where a change has taken place after December, 1963. I invite him to look at the situation in 15 or 20 years' time, assuming that this legislation in its present form goes on to and remains on the Statute Book.
    In 15 or 20 years' time, how can a purchaser of property be satisfied that the four-year period expired before 21st Dec-cember, 1963, and not on the 22nd or 23rd December, 1963? Is he to be satisfied with a statutory declaration? If so, who is to make to make the statutory declaration in 15 or 20 years' time? The property may have changed hands several times. Deaths may have taken place. It would be virtually impossible in very many cases for a practising solicitor to satisfy himself that the change had been saved by the four-year rule prior to December, 1963.
    What is more, the burden of proof as between the owner of the land and the local planning authority will be on the person seeking to establish the user. Practitioners will find this problem wellnigh insurmountable. I think the experience will be that further legislation will be required to correct the anomalies which are bound to arise if the Minister remains set on his present course. For this reason I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support, if necessary in the Division Lobby, the Amendment to the Government Amendment concerning the establishment of the six-year rule.
    Paragraph (a) of the Minister's Amendment refers to
    "the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations".
    I assume that this is designed to meet the comment of the Minister when he said in Committee:
    "It is not that people secretly put up a building. One can see a building when it is
    670
    put up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 12th March, 1968, c. 355.]
    For that reason, the Minister has presumably decided that a local authority should know that a building is going up and there should not be uncertainty into infinity: the local planning authority should be required to act within a given period.
    If that is the Minister's reason, why as long as four years? In a case where a building is going up, the local authority should be required to act more expeditiously than that. A six-month period or a 12-month period would be appropriate.
    In paragraph (b) the Minister wishes to retain the four-year period where there has been a
    "failure to comply with any condition or limitation which relates to the carrying out of such operations and subject to which planning permission was granted for the development of that land".
    I again assume that the Minister's reason is that where a local planning authority has granted planning permission subject to conditions and a development takes place under that permission, the planning officers of the authority should be alive to see that the development is taking place in conformity with the permission that has been granted—in other words, that there should be some inspection whilst the development is taking place or immediately it is completed so that the authority can be satisfied that all has been done as it should have been done. If so, again why wait for as long as four years before serving an enforcement notice? This argues for a six-months or a 12-months notice, not a four-year one. I ask the Minister to reconsider his Amendment.
    Paragraph (c) says:
    "that making without planning permission of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling-house."
    This is subject to our Amendment that "single dwelling-house" should be altered to "residential use". We seek to do this for a number of reasons. First, this is not the language that the Minister used in Committee: he did not speak of a single dwelling-house. He said:
    "I should be content to leave it also for a very large class of change of use, namely, change of use to residential user. There are

    671
    two reasons: first, obviously there cannot be concealment; secondly, of its nature it is not likely to be offensive or to lead to complaint." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 12th March, 1968; c. 357.]
    Therefore, the Minister has not followed his undertaking.
    There is no such class use in the Planning Acts as a single dwelling-house. The class use is residential use. We therefore fault the Minister for trying to create a novel class use without legislating in the appropriate manner by making an amendment to the appropriate legislation. For this reason, we contend that the Government Amendment may well be bad.
    I return to the reasons the Minister gave in Committee for being prepared to permit residential use or, for that matter, a single dwelling-house. He said that he had no objection to the four-year rule remaining because obviously there could not be concealment. Why must there be more or less concealment for residential use than for single occupation? Is the Minister suggesting that there can be more concealment for multi-occupation than for single occupation?
    Mr. MacDennot: I should have thought that it is very clear that if a building is used for residential purposes it is fairly readily observable, but one does not know how many people are living there. Experience has shown that it has not been possible to control what have been breaches of existing planning control of this kind owing to the provisions of the four-year rule.
    Mr. Rossi: I concede at once that multi-occupation, particularly in our running twilight areas, is a great social evil which must be cured, but I suggest that it must be cured by redevelopment plans by housing associations or local authorities. The right way to deal with that problem would be to strengthen the local authorities' powers under the Housing Acts. The Minister is creating bad law, so far as a Statute can do that. He is departing from existing class use, and I stress that he is also departing from his undertaking to us. This is a rather serious matter. Multi-occupation may be treated in other ways under other legislation. I believe that the recent White Paper has something to say
    672
    about problems of multi-occupation and overcrowding.
    I ask that Minister to consider the case of a shop with store rooms over it, all housed in one building. If the shopkeeper decides to change the user of part of the premises for residential accommodation for one or two members of his staff, he will be in breach of this provision. He will not be protected by the four-year rule. They are housed within one building, he is creating residential accommodation, and yet he is not protected by it. I ask the Minister to consider the further ramifications that the restriction he has put on his undertaknig might well have.
    The Minister asked for an explanation of our second Amendment. If a local authority has noted in its rating lists a use class for a property its planning committee should be deemed to know what the user is, and therefore should not be entitled to serve an enforcement notice. It would be real lethargy on the part of a planning authority if it was not aware for a period of more than four years of what was in its own rating lists.
    Our third Amendment is to give some certainty as to the date from which the breach of the four-year period shall be deemed to run. By their very nature, these breaches are continuing matters, and some point of time must be given when the breach shall be deemed to start. We suggest the commencement of the operations, the failure or the change.
    For those reasons, I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole matter.
    10.45 p.m.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: I hope that the Minister will look at our fourth Amendment again. This should not be left just as an argument between lawyers. There are practical considerations here. There should be a period. I think that six years is too long. Obviously my hon. and right hon. Friends had a compromise figure in mind in order to get some support from the Government. Three or four years would perhaps be more practical and fair. [Interruption.] Except for the cases outlined in the Government's Amendment, there will be no period at all.
    Take the case of an hotel where there is some difference of view between the

    673
    planning authority and the owners. Suppose that the owners want to turn the basement of the hotel into a sauna bath and that it is suggested that use of the basement for a sauna bath may be a change of user for which they should get permission. The owners may argue that the installation of a new bath is not a change of user. A sauna bath has not been defined as being any different from an ordinary bath. There is, therefore, a difference of view as to whether there is a change of user which should carry planning permission.
    I know of cases in which the matter is left in abeyance. A local planning authority, having searched its books, cannot see that it would at the moment be in order in pursuing its insistence that planning permission be obtained on the basis that there has been a change of user of the basement. But it has not conceded that it is in order. If it does not pursue the point and the matter is left in abeyance, it could well be that, under some ruling which may be made that sauna baths should be recognised within the planning vocabulary, a sauna bath would be deemed to be a change of user.
    I give that as an example because it is one which I have in mind, but no doubt similar anomalies and borderline cases exist throughout the country. I think that it is e very sound argument in support of the case that a period should be laid down after which owners know they are safe. That would be fair and practical.
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) thought that the Government Amendment as it stood would turn a situation of what he described as uncertainty into infinity. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) took up the same point in the example which he gave of the sauna bath in an hotel. I entirely accept the need for machinery for establishing certainty in such cases, and it would be intolerable if people were left in a situation of uncertainty. I accept the fairness of what he said about the importance of looking at the conveyancing aspect. In Committee, I made it plain that I had no pretensions to conveyancing knowledge, but I was alive to the serious practical problems of the matter.
    674
    We will come later to Amendment 212 on the Order Paper, dealing with this aspect, which has been promoted by the Law Society. I have already given an undertaking that we must cover the point, and there must be an adequate procedure. If we are to have this open-ended enforcement procedure, a person who may be in doubt as to whether or not he is covered must be able to apply to the planning authority and get certification. This will arise particularly when a person conveys property. He wants to be sure he is giving a good title, the purchaser wants to be sure of getting a good title, and there must be certification procedure. So the Amendments are to be read together.
    I do not want to comment on suggestions which are not the subject of the Amendment, or alternative words, but I would like to comment on a general attitude which has been described suggesting that planning authorities were not as diligent as they ought to be in detecting breaches of planning control. It's asked, "Why wait for four years?" I reject the idea however that we should turn planning authorities into a police force on planning. Planning officers are very busy men, many of them are overworked, and they have very important planning functions to perform. It is not for them to go chasing around or, as I said in Committee, "riding round on bicycles" trying to find out whether there have been breaches in planning control. That is not their function.
    We want an effective system to see that planning control is observed, and is not abused and evaded by people who just are law-breakers. We do not think it right to introduce the machinery of the criminal law in order to deal with the situation; no one is suggesting that. But they are gaining a benefit by development without authority. We need an effective deterrent, and the existing four-year rule with its relatively narrow field of changes of use other than changes of use to residential use has opened up abuses which are the subject of very strong complaints from planning authorities. I have had representations from planning authorities in various parts of the country who are anxious to see this provision go through. They accept the limitations imposed on it in the Amendment.

    675
    I reject the idea that my precise wording in what I said when I threw out a suggestion in Committee should be taken as an undertaking to be transferred into the wording of a Statute, and I suggest that my Amendment is fully within the spirit of what I have said. I have pointed out the social evil which will result. It is not something new. I am not inventing the idea of a single dwelling-house as a separate class. Section 12(3) of the 1962 Act provides:
    "For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section—
    (a) the use as two or more separate dwellinghouses of any building previously used as a single dwellinghouse involves a material change in the use of the building and of each part thereof which is so used";
    It already is a breach of planning control to convert from a single dwelling-house to a multiple dwelling-house, and for the social reasons I have outlined I suggest, that it would be wise not to subject such a breach to the constraint of the four-year rule. For these reasons I would advise the House to reject the Amendments.
    Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: While we understand that the Minister of State speaking in Committee may from time to time necessarily use language a little loosely, we do feel that there has been a breach of a clear understanding that when he talked about residential use
    he meant residential use in the sense in which we are accustomed to use it in planning matters.
    Dealing with the limitation period, we would agree with a great deal of what the Minister has said on the need to ensure that law-breaking is not encouraged, and no great burdens are placed upon local planning officers in relation to enforcement action. At the same time, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has urged so cogently, we feel that something more needs to be done than has been suggested so far, to ensure finality. We welcome the Minister of State's undertakings that the matter will be looked at again later in these proceedings and perhaps in another place.
    Therefore, I beg formally to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to insert:
    'and in all other cases it may be served only within the period of six years from the date of the breach'.
    We feel that it would be much more simple and convenient if we were clear about this and established a six-year period for all these matters.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
    The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 177.

    Division No. 158.]

    AYES

    [10.55 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Maddan, Martin

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Faster, Sir John

    Maginnts, John E.

    Astor, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Awdry, Daniel

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Gower, Raymond

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

    Grant, Anthony

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Monro, Hector

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Brewis, John

    Grieve, Percy

    More, Jasper

    Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Murton, Oscar

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M)

    Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hawkins, Paul

    Nott, John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Clegg, Walter

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Percival, Ian

    Cooke, Robert

    Hiley, Joseph

    Peyton, John

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Holland, Philip

    Pounder, Rafton

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hordern, Peter

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Dance, James

    Hunt, John

    Prior, J. M. L.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pym, Francis

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Doughty, Charles

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Eden, Sir John

    Kirk, Peter

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Elliott,n.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lane, David

    Royle, Anthony

    Farr, John

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Fisher, Nigel

    MacArthur, Ian

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McMaster, Stanley

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Silvester. Frederick

    Wall, Patrick

    Worsley, Marcut

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Walters, Dennis

    Wright, Esmond

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'tnington)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Wylie, N. R.

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Speed, Keith

    Webster, David

    Stainton, Keith

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Taylor, Frank (Moss side)

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Temple, John M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Gourlay, Harry

    Orbach, Maurice

    Aliaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Orme, Stanley

    Archer, Peter

    Gregory, Arnold

    Oswald, Thomas

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Griffiths, David (Rorher Valley)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Barnett, Joel

    Hamling, William

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Baxter, William

    Harman, William

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Beaney, Alan

    Harper, Joseph

    pentland, Norman

    Benee, Cyril

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Haseldine, Norman

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Hazell, Bert

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Blackburn, F.

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Probert, Arthur

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Horner, John

    Rees, Merlyn

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Booth, Albert

    Howie, W.

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Hoy, James

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Rose, Paul

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Hunter, Adam

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Brown, R. W (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Buchan, Norman

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Cant, R. B.

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Skcffington, Arthur

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Slater, Joseph

    Chapman, Donald

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Small William

    Coe, Denis

    Lawson, George

    Snow, Julian

    Coleman, Donald

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Spriggs Leslie

    Concannon, J D.

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Steel, David(Roxburgh)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Taverne Dick

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Tinn, James

    Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Urwi'n, T. W.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Varley Eric G

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    McBride, Neil

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Delargy, Hugh

    MacColl, James

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Dempsey, James

    MacDermot, Niall

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Dewar, Donald

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    McGuire, Michael

    Wallace George

    Dickens, James

    Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Doig, Peter

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Watkins Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Dunnett, Jack

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Weitzman, David

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Wellbeloved James

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Whitaker Ben

    Eadie, Alex

    Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

    White, Mrs. Eriene

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Mapp, Charles

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Ellis, John

    Marks, Kenneth

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    English, Michael

    Marquand, David

    Williams Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Ennals, David

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Williams, Rt. Hn. George

    Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Millan, Bruce

    Winsatnley Dr. M.P.

    Faulds, Andrew

    MilIer, Dr. M. S.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn.A.

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Woof Robert

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Yates, Victor

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Moyle, Roland

    Ford, Ben

    Murray, Albert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Forrester, John

    Neal, Harold

    Mr. John McCann and

    Freeson, Reginald

    Newens, Stan

    Mr. Alan Fitch.

    Gardner, Tony

    Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phitip(Derby,S.)

    Garrert, W. E.

    O'Malley, Brian

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    Clause 14.
    APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCEMENT NOTICE.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 12, line 25,
    678
    to leave out from beginning to ' occurred ' and to insert:
    (c) in the case of a notice alleging a breach of planning control which, by virtue of section 13(3) above, may be served only within the period of four years from the date of the breach, that that period had elapsed at the date of service;

    679
    (cc) in the case of a notice not falling within paragraph (c) above, that the breach of planning control alleged by the notice.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment, we can discuss the Amendment to it standing in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), to leave out 'the period of four years' and insert 'a specific period'.
    Mr. MacDermot: I suggest that we also discuss Amendment No. 31, in page 15, line 21, after '(c)', insert '(cc)', which is consequential.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is convenient.
    Mr. MacDermot: Amendment No. 24 is consequential on Amendment No. 23. It makes the necessary change in Clause 14(1) by adding as an additional ground of appeal that a breach of planning control, to which the four-year rule still applies, took place more than four years before the enforcement notice was served.
    Mr. Graham Page: We do not wish to move our Amendment to the Amendment, nor to comment. We accept the Government Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 12, line 36, to leave out 'state the' and to insert 'some'.
    Clause 14 deals with the procedure of appeals against enforcement notices. Subsection (2), in particular, deals with the form in which an appeal against an enforcement notice is brought before the Minister. It replaces the existing law, contained in Section 46(2) of the 1962 Act. However, it does not reproduce that provision exactly, but adds a little to it. It is the addition to which we object. Section 46(2) of the Act says:
    "Any appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Minister, which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal;"
    The provision in the Bill is as follows:
    "An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Minister which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal and state the facts on which it is based;"
    It is this last phrase which is the addition. We fear that if facts have to be stated in the notice of appeal to the Minister, the appellant will be precluded from producing further facts at the hearing.
    680
    At present, it is accepted law that one needs to indicate only a ground of appeal and not necessarily indicate all the grounds of appeal. The Bill says that the appellant "shall … state the facts". The ordinary interpretation must surely be that, in his notice, he must state the facts, and not just some of them, on which he bases his appeal and that, if he does not state them, he will not be at liberty to bring them forward at the hearing.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman will know the case Chelmsford R.D.C. v. Powell. The basis of the decision was that an appellant, having indicated a ground of appeal, could bring forward further grounds later at the hearing before the Minister. But the whole of that decision, I believe, was based on the word "indicate". In the Bill it says that the appellant must state the facts, and state the facts he must if it becomes law in this form.
    If he does not state the full facts he will not have an opportunity of bringing more facts forward at the hearing. If this additional burden on the appellant means anything at all, it is restrictive on his rights of appeal. It is unfair that the appellant is called upon to state the facts at that early stage, whereas the local planning authority does not have to state the facts on which it alleges that there has been a breach of planning law. The appellant is put at a disadvantage. He is not told the facts on which the local planning authority alleges that he has broken the planning law, but within 28 days of being served with an enforcement notice, he has to collect all the facts in dispute, set them out in a notice to the Minister, and abide by what he sets out in the notice. This is too great a burden on an appellant. If he merely indicates the grounds of appeal, and some facts on which the appeal is based, that should be sufficient. He should be at liberty to bring forward further facts at the hearing.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): We had a long discussion about this on 14th March in Committee, and I am conscious of the point of the hon. Gentleman, that if all the facts were not indicated in the notice of appeal, then the appellant might be precluded from adducing them at the inquiry. I said that

    681
    I would look at this point to see whether, without letting in the very mischief we want to prevent—which is that all those going to the inquiry, the local authority or anyone else, could turn up without knowing what are the basic facts upon which the appellant is basing his case— something could be done.
    On reflection I cannot think that it is right that everyone should be left in the dark without having this basic indication of the nature of the grounds of appeal. I said that I would consider whether, without readmitting the mischief we wanted to avoid, we could put in statutory form something which would meet the hon. Gentleman's point. We have spent a good deal of time with the draftsmen and others, but we are afraid that it is not possible to draft something which would not undo what is the major purpose of the new subsection.
    I can assure the hon. Gentleman, since the decision of Chelmsford R.D.C. v. Powell, when it was held that the Minister could consider other grounds, legal advice is that he certainly could do so. I have indicated that all that is required under this subsection is that the basic facts, not the means by which the appellant hopes to prove the facts, need be given. This could be considered by the Minister. It has been held that the Minister could consider additional facts when he comes into the picture. I go a little further and tell the hon. Gentleman that within the regulations which will have to be made, we shall indicate this point, that the main theme of the basic facts must be given. We will go further, so that the appellant will know that they are the requirements.
    Sir John Foster: Will the Minister meet the point that the other side, the local authority, is not bound to disclose the facts, because in the enforcement notice the facts may very well be changed. My hon. Friend made the point that it is unfair on the appellant to have to state all the facts and not the authority.
    Mr. Skeffington: He would have to state what the broad nature of the appeal was.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said about including this in regulations. I would have liked to have seen
    682
    it in the Bill. It is far more satisfactory that we should state the point here and now rather than to have to look it up in regulations later. Nevertheless this is a point of wording. I hope it may be looked at in another place. I do not wish to delay the House by dividing it, and I am willing to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's assurances that he will put something very definite in regulations to protect the appellant in the case that he presents. Accordingly, I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment 26, in page 13, line 9, leave out 'he is satisfied that' and insert 'the appellant or'.
    This is an Amendment to Clause 14(4), which is another subsection dealing with the procedure on appeals to the Minister against enforcement notices. This subsection deals with the correction of informalities and the service of enforcement notices. The subsection provides that the Minister may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice, if he is satisfied that the enforcement, defect or error is not material. It then goes on to give the Minister power to decide whether a person who has not been served with an enforcement notice is or is not prejudiced by the failure to serve him. If the Minister is satisfied that the person is substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve, he can continue with the appeal, and, I suppose, bind that person to the decision he may make on the appeal.
    This is surely serious. It is the duty of the local planning authority, if it serves an enforcement notice, to see that it serves it on all the persons concerned and on those who may be affected by a decision on the enforcement notice. One who may be affected by the failure to serve is the appellant himself. If the Minister decided that someone who has not been served with a notice who would normally be served is not prejudiced by the failure to serve him, that may be all right for that person, but the appellant may be prejudiced by that person not being before the Minister on appeal, if, for example, the appellant is a freeholder and his tenant has committed the

    683
    breach which has given rise to the enforcement notice. The tenant may well not be prejudiced, in fact would be in a privileged position if he is not served with the enforcement notice, but the freeholder would be prejudiced by not having the tenant as a party to the appeal.
    The second point arises out of the words "If he is satisfied". This leaves the complete power to the Minister to decide whether a person should have been served or not. This is an immense power to put in the hands of the Minister, of judging a person in his absence. If he, in his wisdom or lack of wisdom, thinks that it does not matter that somebody has not been served with an enforcement notice, neither the appellant, nor that person, nor the courts, can question that. The Minister has merely to say: "I am satisfied that the man has not been substantially prejudiced and I am not going to stop these proceedings merely to go back and serve him".
    This is too great a power to put in the hands of a Minister who is himself hearing the appeal. He should see that the notice has been served. It is not for him to have the absolute discretion to say whether or not it should be served. The most important point is that service of the notice is a condition precedent to a decision of the High Court, on a decision of the Minister on appeal. If the Minister has gone wrong on the law on appeal, the appellant will be entitled to go to the High Court to try to get that decision right in law. His right to go to the High Court is given to him under Section 180(1) of the 1962 Act. It is a condition precedent to his appeal to the High Court that he is a person who has been served with an enforcement notice.
    Section 180(1) of the 1962 Act provides:
    "Where the Minister gives a decision in proceedings on an appeal under Part IV of this Act against an enforcement notice, the appellant or the local planning authority or any person (other than the appellant) on whom the enforcement notice was served under Part IV of this Act may, according as rules of court may provide, either appeal to the High Court against the decision on a point of law or require the Minister to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court."
    It seems that if a man has not been served, he has no right under that section
    684
    to appeal to the High Court on a point of law. So if the Minister is given the power, under Clause 14(4), to decide in his absolute discretion whether a person ought to have been served, he is deciding whether that person would have a right to appeal to the High Court on a point of law. If I am right in this construction of the law—and it is not an easy matter to interpret, because one is trying to tie up the 1962 Act with the Bill—the Minister is taking power to decide whether a man will have the right to appeal to the High Court against a decision of the Minister on a point of law. This should not remain in the Bill in that form. My Amendment would correct that and would leave it to the courts to decide, if there was any question, whether a person ought to have been served with an enforcement notice.
    Mr. Skeffington: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for that last point, because it is a new one. We would like to look at it, if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment. We must look at it in any event, and we will.
    I do not think that the appellant could normally be substantially prejudiced, because, if he is not served, as the Amendment suggests, he would not be an appellant, and presumably none of the other processes could follow. This is what puzzled me about the Amendment, but I can now understand it, because of the additional reasons which the hon. Gentleman introduced at a later stage. The appeal is in the Minister's hands, and if he found that, because of some defect of this character in relation to another party, the appellant was prejudiced, this would be a proper matter which he could and would take into account.
    On the first point, there is not much in the hon. Gentleman's fears. On the point about the failure to serve a notice, this would be a good defence in the magistrates' court regarding non-compliance. This only goes back to the fact that he would not have complied with the notice.
    In view of the third important point, we would like to look at the matter again.
    Mr. Graham Page: With respect, I am getting tired of matters being looked at again. This is a vitally important point. It may be that I have only just put the third point across the Floor of the House, but the Amendment is just as important on the first and second points which I raised. Whether the third point needs looking at again is neither here nor there. This was discussed in Committee. It is one of those matters which should not be left. We shall not get another chance in this House to put it right. We should have to rely on somebody else putting it right in another place. Therefore, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am anxious to save time. I am content to accept the Amendment on the clear understanding that, when we have looked at it, if we think some alteration of wording is required, we will introduce the necessary Amendment elsewhere. I do not want it to be taken that we have bound ourselves to accepting that this is the effective way of dealing with it.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am happy with that if the Minister is willing to accept it on those terms.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 15.
    POWER TO STOP FURTHER DEVELOPMENT PENDING PROCEEDINGS ON ENFORCEMENT NOTICE.
    Mr. James Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 15, line 7, after 'on', insert 'all the'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 28, in page 15, line 9, after 'date', insert 'of service'.
    Mr. Allason: Clause 15 concerns the stop notice procedure by which there is to be in future an immediate means of enforcement of planning control by the service of a notice prohibiting the continuing of any specified operation. This will be useful where there is a nuisance through breach of planning control. This is a sharp weapon in the hands of the local planning authority and, as a sharp weapon, it should be used with care.
    686
    There are various methods of ending the stop notice. In the event of there appearing to be an error, the stop notice will be withdrawn. It may be that the local planning authority, in good faith, believe that there is a breach of planning control, issue a stop notice, and then, upon investigation, find there is no breach of planning control and they withdraw the stop notice.
    If the stop notice was withdrawn, compensation would be payable for any loss or damage directly attributable. This is provided in Clause 16. This subsection concerns the method of withdrawing the notice. Amendment 27 would provide for service on "all the persons" affected and not just "persons", thus avoiding the possibility of the notice being served on one person and not the others. This is because withdrawal of a stop notice on one person would be binding on all those concerned, and each one would require to consider his position over compensation, particularly considering that compensation depends upon expenditure during the period of operation of the notice.
    If that expense were running, perhaps, for several days after withdrawal, compensation could not be claimed, because the expense would not be directly attributable to the lifting of the notice. Therefore, the date of the notice taking effect is very important, and Amendment 28 deals with that, providing that it would be from the date of service of the notice. If the effective date is the date that the notice is given, it may be some days before the notice reaches the person concerned. After a decision to withdraw is made, the notice may lie on a clerk's table for a whole weekend before being posted to the person concerned. He finds that for several days past he has been put to expense for which he cannot claim compensation. I hope, therefore, that that Amendment can be accepted.
    11.30 p.m.
    Let me give one example. Suppose there is a chalk pit being used for rubbish dumping; that the local planning authority believes there is a breach of planning control and serves a stop notice on both the mineral undertaker owning the chalk pit and the rubbish dumper; then finds that there is no breach of planning

    687
    control; that it was mistaken; and that it withdraws the stop notice on the rubbish dumper only. Meanwhile, the mineral undertaker is quite unaware that the stop notice has been withdrawn and he continues to spend money on trying to take measures to correct the alleged nuisance which turns out not to be a breach of planning control at all.
    Therefore, on the two grounds, firstly that the mineral undertaker ought to know about the withdrawal of the stop notice, and secondly, that the date at which he knows about it ought to be the date on which the stop notice takes effect, I hope both these Amendments will be accepted.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is a valid point here, I think. It is that the stop notice operates in personam and not in rent. It operates against the person on whom a particular notice is served, and I think that the inevitable consequence of that is that it should continue in force till that person has received notice that it has been withdrawn. Just as stop notices can begin to operate at different times, namely, the times when they are served on different persons, so I think it follows that they should cease to operate at different times, namely, the times when notices of that are served on the particular persons. That is why I cannot accept the first Amendment, because it would mean they could not operate till they had been served on all the people —and someone might have emigrated, and then we really would have an infinity of time in which the stop notice would continue to operate.
    What I think we should do is to recast the wording a bit. We would accept Amendment No. 28, and I would advise the House to accept it. It would mean we would have to make some additional Amendment later in consequence. So I would advise the House to reject Amendment No. 27 and to accept Amendment No. 28.
    Mr. Allason: In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 28, in page 15, line 9, after 'date' insert 'of service'. —[Mr. Allason.]

    Clause 16.
    COMPENSATION FOR LOSS DUE TO STOP NOTICE.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 15, line 10, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
    (1) Where a stop notice ceases to have effect, a person

    (a) in relation to whom the stop notice was in force, or

    (b) who at any time during which the stop notice was in force had an interest in the land to which it related, or

    (c) who at any time during which the stop notice was in force was concerned with the carrying out or continuance of any operations on the land to which it related, or

    (d) who was served with the stop notice under section 15(1) or (2) of this Act,

    shall, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2) below, be entitled to recover from the local planning authority compensation for all loss or damage suffered by him as a result of the prohibition contained in the notice.

    Clause 16 deals with compensation for loss due to stop notices, and subsection (1) sets out those who are entitled to compensation. When we discussed this in Committee the Minister agreed that the wording needed amendment, and there is a Government Amendment, Amendment No. 30, which is related to this. I do not know whether it would be convenient to deal with that Amendment at the same time as this?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is for the convenience of the House? Yes, indeed.
    Mr. Page: I am much obliged. The Minister's Amendment is insufficient and inadequate and does not go as far as he seemed to be prepared to go in Committee.
    My hon. Friends have endeavoured to spell out the people who might be concerned and might be damaged by a stop notice and, therefore, might be entitled to compensation. They would be so entitled only if they proved damage, loss or expense as a result of the stop notice having been imposed on them for a period of time. Four categories of persons might be affected in that way and they are set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the proposed new subsection; and I will explain each category. Paragraph (a) is the person
    "…in relation to whom the stop notice was in force …"

    689
    These words are taken from Clause 15, which refers to a stop notice being in force in relation to a person who has imposed on him certain duties, to the extent that if he does not carry out those duties he is guilty of an offence and may be fined up to £400. That is one person who is affected by the stop notice and who may suffer damage and loss, described as a person
    "…in relation to whom the stop notice was in force …"
    The second category, in paragraph (b), is the person who may have an interest in the land at the time when the stop notice is served, or—this is an addition; it does not appear in the Bill as drafted—who may have an interest at any time after the stop notice has been served and before it has been withdrawn. This is necessary in relation to somebody acquiring an interest while the stop notice is in existence because there may be a firm contract, the completion of which happens to take place after the stop notice has been served. Somebody may be obliged to purchase a property before the stop notice was served, and he must then carry out his contract and buy the property. He may thereby suffer loss by reason of the stop notice on the property. Thus, the second category concerns a person
    "… who at any time during which the stop notice was in force had an interest in the land to which it related …"
    The third category, in paragraph (c), is a person
    "… who at any time during which the stop notice was in force was concerned with the carrying out or continuance of any operations on the land to which it related …"
    These words are taken from Clause 15(2), which provides that
    "A stop notice may be served by the local planning authority on any person who appears to them to have an interest in the land or to be concerned with the carrying out or continuance of any operations thereon."
    Here is someone else who is recognised as being involved in the proceedings of the stop notice and who may, therefore, suffer loss.
    The fourth category, in paragraph (d), is the person
    "… who was served with the stop notice under section 15(1) or (2) of this Act …"
    One might call this what is often referred to in Income Tax law as the "dustbin schedule" because it sweeps in all those who neither had an interest in the
    690
    land nor were concerned with operations but who appeared to the local planning authority to have such an interest or to be concerned in operations. Under Clause 15(2)
    "A stop notice may be served … on any person who appears to …"
    the local planning authority
    "… to have an interest in the land or to be concerned with … operations thereon."
    They would not come into the earlier categories I have described because one could say that they did not have an interest and were not concerned at all, but unfortunately they were served with a stop notice. I think it would be an exceptional case in which they could suffer loss and be entitled to compensation, but this sets out the categories of persons who may suffer loss. Of course they must prove that loss if they are to be entitled to compensation.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am trying to understand how a person with no interest in the land and not concerned with operations on it could suffer financial loss as a result of being served with a stop notice because it appeared to a local authority that he had an interest when he had not.
    Mr. Page: A number of persons may be concerned, a freeholder, a tenant, a contractor, a sub-contractor or a sub-sub-contractor. It might be that one subcontractor is not concerned with particular developments in respect of which a stop notice has been served but he appears to be so involved and, being served with a stop notice, he may be obliged to stop other work on the land and thereby suffer loss. As I have said, it would be an extraordinary case in which such a person suffered loss, but he is a person who may be served with a stop notice and, if he can prove loss, he should be entitled to compensation.
    The effort is to set out conveniently all those who might be entitled rather than leaving it indefinite and certainly not wide enough in the wording of Clause 16(1). It was agreed on both sides in Committee that this needed to be amended. We have tried to find the right words and I hope that they commend themselves to the Minister.
    Mr. MaeDermot: I agree that our Amendment No. 30 goes only part of the way. I said in Committee that I

    691
    thought the Clause is drawn too narrowly both as respects the landowner and the contractor. Amendment No. 30 secures the position of the landowner whose right to compensation will no longer depend on having been served with a stop notice, but it does not deal with the contractor. I had hoped to put down an Amendment at this stage, but I understand from the Parliamentary draftsman that he has found this an exceedingly complex and difficult matter because it involves the contractual rights of the contractor.
    The difficulty here is to ensure that the planning authority will not have to pay the same compensation twice over—once to the landowner who may be in a contractual position where he has indemnified the contractor, and duplicating that by giving a statutory right to the contractor to get compensation direct from the authority. That is the reason for the complication and the delay.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby on his bold attempt to draft it, but I must advise the House that I do not think his draft is satisfactory for a number of reasons. I have dealt with the difficulty about the contractor and the risk of duplication. Paragraph (b) is objectionable for a different reason. It would give a right of compensation to a person who acquired an interest in the land after the stop notice had been served as well as to a person who had an interest when it was served. This could give rise to a traffic in claims for compensation by allowing claims to run with the land. As I said, a stop notice is a personal notice. It does not run, and it ought not to run, with the land. A purchaser buying land in respect of which a stop notice has been served would be buying subject to an enforcement notice. Searches and supplementary inquiries should reveal that existence of the stop notice so that he does not buy in ignorance.
    11.45 p.m.
    The wording at the end of the Amendment about the measure of damages, to which" the hon. Gentleman did not refer, is wording which was the subject of the Amendment which was considered and rejected in Committee, omitting in effect "directly" which appears and which, as I explained in Committee, should remain.
    692
    I repeat the assurance that I gave in Committee. We will bring forward an Amendment, which I hope that the House will find acceptable, to deal with the position of the contractor.
    Mr. Graham Page: Our difficulty at present is that this is practically the last stage of the Bill. We shall not be able to see the Amendment which the Government table in another place and will not have a chance to discuss it fully and in detail. Admittedly, the Bill will return here for consideration of Lords Amendments, but there is no opportunity then to consider it in the detail which we would have devoted to it if an Amendment had been made in Committee or on Report. From what the Minister has said, I think that we are at one in what we want to provide in subsection (1). If I am right about that—
    Mr. MacDermot Mr. MacDermot indicated assent.
    Mr. Page:—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: Amendment No. 30, in page 15, line 11, leave out from beginning to second 'who'.
    Amendment No. 31, in line 21, after '(c)', insert '(cc)'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 17.
    DETERMINATION OF PLANNING AND SIMILAR APPEALS BY PERSONS APPOINTED BY THE MINISTER.
    Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 16, line 8, leave out from 'except' to 'as' in line 9.
    Subsection (1) is divided into three parts. One part provides that the Minister may prescribe the classes of appeal which shall be determined by an inspector instead of, as at present, by the Minister. Secondly, the Minister may prescribe exceptions by classes of case for the time being. Having prescribed the classes, he then un-prescribes them. Thirdly, the Minister may give directions as regards exceptions. Again, these are exceptions by general cases, not by individual cases, because Clause 18 provides arrangements for the Minister to exempt individual cases from his general prescriptions.
    We welcome the principle of this delegation of the power of decision on an appeal from the Minister to the inspector,

    693
    but we would like to know rather more about the types of class than we have heard so far. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary gave us no explanation; he merely said that the cases would be those falling under Section 23 of the 1962 Act. The cases he mentioned were appeals relating to single houses, residential conversions, and outline planning of residential development of under two acres. He went on to define that as
    "little groups of three or four houses".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 21st March, 1968; c. 549.]
    It seems an amazingly low density if he is thinking of three or four houses on a site of up to two acres. He added that there would not yet be prescription for caravans, shops, offices and garages— that is, there would be prescription for these classes later. This still leaves the whole matter pretty vague. If the Minister could make a statement on this it would be a general help.
    The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the power to exempt classes of case by prescription. It is intended that the Minister shall prescribe the classes of cases which shall be dealt with and then to prescribe out of them classes of cases which shall be exceptions to the classes he has already prescribed. That seems rather a muddled way of doing things. We know from the Minister that he intends to prescribe certain classes later. I hope that he will not prescribe a general class and then say, "The following are exceptions and shall not come into effect until I make a further prescription." It would be better to start gently, gain experience of how well the system will work and then extend the prescriptions. It seems peculiar to make the prescriptions and then un-prescribe them.
    I hope that the Minister will explain what is really intended.
    Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the broad categories of cases which it was hoped could be transferred at a very early stage to be decided in the way that the Clause provides, so that we would no longer have the appeals which I have sometimes described as cascading into Whitehall. As he said, this is an objective which is generally welcomed.
    To some extent the hon. Gentleman inadvertently misquoted me. I referred to
    694
    planning applications confined to small areas of about two acres and went on to talk about outline planning permission for small groups of housing, perhaps of three or four or up to 10—but not in relation to two acres. The question of density does not arise. What I was trying to give was the number of simple planning applications, the overwhelming number of which relate to single houses, additions to houses, garages, and things like that, in which it is absurd that appeals should come to Whitehall. I went a little further in describing some of the categories with which it was not intended at an early stage to deal under the procedure of the Clause —things like caravans, shops, offices and petrol stations. But I went on to say that we did not want to get a great volume of this work transferred because this is one of the ways in which we can make planning machinery more local, more democratic and faster, and, to use a word which I sometimes used to describe Amendments of hon. Members opposite, less "grandmotherly", with everything being referred to Whitehall. This has commanded general support. I said in Committee on another occasion that discussions about categories and classes are going on with various bodies, so that we hope that a very quick start will be made in the selected areas.
    The hon. Gentleman went on to the need, having prescribed categories and classes of cases which could be decided in this way, for reserving power to recover the jurisdiction. Perhaps I can give one or two examples. We know that in planning matters applications in respect of a small physical development can sometimes have a very damaging effect or an effect of great consequence on traffic, or whatever it may be, and therefore become extremely significant. The examples which the Ministry has in mind are the sort of cases in which the Minister of Transport makes an Article 9 direction. This is the sort of case where development may be prohibited or allowed only with conditions where the development abuts on a trunk road. These are considerations which are not as simple as the categories it is suggested should be transferred in the first place. Or it may be that these are cases where development can be permitted as long as the access abuts on to a side road. These involve, in the earlier stages, matters which probably it would not be right to

    695
    transfer, and therefore the Minister would, if he thought it suitable, recover the determination of these cases.
    In another group of cases, the Minister of Agriculture may have strongly expressed the view that development should not take place because of the high agricultural value of the land. This is beyond the sort of case which, in the first stages, we would want decided in the way in which other cases might be decided. Such cases involve considerations which may be more complex and require rather more experienced treatment. While we should provide for the simple planning matters to be transferred—it is absurd that appeals should go through this long procedure, coming up to the capital—even small developments can sometimes involve planning consequences which may have considerable effects. Therefore, we must make provision for these matters to be recovered in the way suggested.
    Sir J. Foster: In cases in which it is difficult to see whether the Minister of Agriculture has expressed a strong desire, is there not a great enough safeguard under Clause 18(1)?
    Mr. Skeffington: There will be certain categories of case which come within the Minister's jurisdiction. Discussions about categories are going on with the interested bodies. We are asking them very largely to decide this themselves with guidance. Our desire is to make this a local operation. But these matters will be carefully specified in due course under the powers in the Bill.
    Mr. Allason: We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his further dissertation on the intentions of the Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    12 m.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 16, line 16, at end insert:
    (b) appeals under section 14 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 36 and 37.
    Mr. Skeffington: Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 add two categories to the enforcement appeals which are capable of being delegated to inspectors for determination. These are appeals against Tree Preservation Orders within the powers of the Civic Amenities Act, 1967, and advertisement enforcement appeals, which Amendment No. 36 is designed to cover.
    This is an enabling power. In view of the explanations I gave on a previous Amendment in Committee, we do not intend that these matters should be subject to the procedure of transfer at the present time. But we must take the power in the Bill to enable this to be done at the appropriate time.
    The necessary rearrangement of parts of the Schedule would follow and are provided for in Amendment No. 37.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 36, in page 16, line 17, at end insert:
    'as originally enacted or as applied by regulations under any provision of the principal Act'.
    Amendment No. 37, in page 16, line 26, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
    (5) A person appointed under this section to determine an appeal shall have the like powers and duties in relation to the appeal as he Minister under whichever are relevant of the following provisions, that is to say—

    (a)in relation to appeals under section 23 of the principal Act, subsections (4) and (6) of that section;

    (b)in relation to appeals under section H of the Civic Amenities Act, section 14(4) and (5) above;

    (c)in relation to appeals under section 54 of this Act, subsections (4) to (6) of that section;

    (d)in relation to appeals under paragraph 1 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act, sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph;

    (e)in relation to appeals under paragraph 12 of that Schedule, sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of that paragraph;

    and those relevant provisions and section 23(7) of the principal Act (finality of decisions), subsection (3) and, where relevant, subsection (7) of section 14 above or paragraph 3(5) or 12(6) of that Schedule, as the case may be, shall apply accordingly.
    Amendment No. 38, in page 16, line 42, leave out ' may be referred to ' and insert ' falls to be determined by'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 18.
    DETERMINATION OF APPEALS BY THE MINISTER.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 17, line 45 leave out from 'had' to end of line 4 on page 18 and insert:
    'not been asked in pursuance of section 17(6) above whether they wished to appear before and be heard by a person appointed to hear the appeal, or had been asked that question and had expressed no wish in answer thereto, or had expressed a wish to appear and be heard as aforesaid, but had not been afforded an opportunity of doing so'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments No. 39, in page 17, line 15 at end insert:
    (8) A person appointed under this section shall in relation to an appeal which falls to be determined by him thereunder ask the applicant or appellant, as the case may require, and the local planning authority before the appeal has been determined whether they wish the appeal to be determined by the Minister, and if either of them so wish the appeal shall be determined by the Minister and not by that person.
    Amendment No. 40, in page 17, line 24 leave out from 'appeal' to end of line 27 and insert:
    'whether such representations be made to the authority or to the Minister or to the person appointed by the Minister'.
    Amendment No. 41, in page 17, line 28 after 'section', insert:
    'or of a request under subsection (8) of the preceding section'.
    Amendment No. 42, in page 17, line 39:
    leave out from 'purpose' to end of line 4 on page 18.
    Mr. Graham Page: Are any of the Amendments selected for a Division if desired?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid not. Mr. Speaker has not selected them for Division.
    Mr. Skeffington: The Amendment makes good a weakness in the provision made for affording hearings to the parties to an appeal which has been recovered from an inspector for determination by the Minister.
    In Committee hon. Members drew attention to certain matters which it was feared were not adequately covered in
    698
    the Clause as drafted. The Amendment places on the Minister the obligation to grant a fresh hearing in certain cases which were not covered before and where it may be essential to have a fresh hearing. These are cases where the reason for the direction recovering the jurisdiction raises matters on which neither of the parties to the matter had previously made representations. This may be because of some of the consequences to which I referred in an earlier Amendment. It may be that there is some factor involving other Ministries. It may be that there is an Article 9 direction or something of that kind. If neither of the parties knew about the circumstances, they ought not to be prejudiced by the matter being independently considered. The Amendment provides for that.
    It is also right that where the parties have not been asked whether they wish to be heard, an opportunity should be provided. Alternatively, it may be that they have been asked but have not replied, or it may be that they have asked to be heard, but that a hearing has not yet taken place. In all those circumstances, one wants to be sure that a hearing is available.
    Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are interested in Amendment No. 42. However, we feel that there is no purpose in going as far as that suggests. If the parties say that they do not wish to be heard by the inspector and agree to abide by written representations, given that assurance, there is no need to provide for a fresh hearing, and there is no reason why, because there is to be a determination by the Minister, there should be a second request to them. It seems unnecessary. Again, if the matter has been fully argued before the inspector but proves unexpectedly difficult and is recovered, all of it having been argued, there is no need to reopen it.
    There is no doubt that the original drafting did not provide with certainty for the three categories that I have mentioned, and I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. Allason: This is the most clumsy Amendment conceivable. It is a perfect example of the sort of wretched drafting that we have come to expect from the Government. It falls into a number of parts. First, it says that the Minister will

    699
    appoint an inspector to hear the appeal if the applicant or the appellant or the local planning authority (a) had not been asked if they wished to appear, or (b) had been asked and (i) expressed no wish or (ii) expressed the wish but had not been heard.
    That leaves us with one remaining alternative, which is that the applicant or the appellant or the local planning authority had not had any opportunity of appearing. In that case, why make everyone wade through a series of alternatives?
    My redrafting is not in Parliamentary language, but it is much more simple. It says that if the applicant or the appellant or the local planning authority wishes, in pursuance of Section 17 (6) above, to be heard but has not already been afforded an opportunity of doing so, and so on.
    If that is the meaning, well and good. But would it not be better to put it that way? The chances are that I have the Amendment upside down and that this is not the intention at all. In which case, the Government have, as they frequently do, produced a piece of gibberish which cannot be understood except by taking counsel's opinion, which I resent having to do because I like to be able to read an Act and understand what it means. Can we have a further explanation?
    Sir J. Foster: I also speak diffidently about the effect of Amendment No. 42. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he did not think it necessary, if there had been argument before the person appointed by the Minister and then the case was determined by the Minister, for all the arguments to be gone through again. But surely that is the very sort of case in which the parties might want to be heard verbally because, under Clause 18(2), the reasons which are given and served on a person to account for the determination of the appeal by the Minister may be reasons which have not been argued at all.
    As I say, I speak with diffidence on this obscure provision, but if I am right this is a strong reason for requiring personal appearance again if the parties so wish. Yet I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that this was unnecessary.
    Mr. Skeffington: If we had put this provision in negative form, no doubt the Opposition would have asked for it to be in a positive form, which is precisely what the Clause does. Whichever way the Government do it, they are wrong, apparently. We are providing for a positive duty.
    The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) asked about a case where the matter has already been argued and then some unexpected factor arises. He said that there should be a re-hearing. But the Minister will have discretion to take this course. If there is any new matter which affects the position of the parties, there can be a rehearing. The position is fully safeguarded.
    The other case to which I referred is that in which both parties have agreed to written representations and have made them. There is no automatic ground for a rehearing in this case but the Minister has discretion to hold one if there is some new factor.
    Sir J. Foster: I do not regard the discretion of a Minister as any safeguard. One knows how bureaucracy works. It might well be that the Minister will be advised not to use his discretion. It is not a good safeguard. Surely hon. Members opposite who stand for the liberty of the subject will want a safeguard where there is a genuine reason for referring a case back to the Minister and will feel frustrated if, when they question the Minister he says, "In the exercise of my discretion I do not think you need come and argue before me".
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. and learned Gentleman has overlooked the Council on Tribunals. If new matter were produced in a case and no opportunity were given to the parties to give it, the rules would be broken and we would be in trouble with the Council. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on weak ground.
    Mr. Graham Page: We are talking about whether people who make representations to the Minister about a subject which he has seen fit to call in from an inspector in order to deal with himself shall know why he has given that direction and shall be given an opportunity of a hearing. The Amendments I want to refer

    701
    to are Amendments No. 40, No. 42 and No. 43. Amendment No. 40 provides for those who have made representations to the Minister, to the local planning authority or to the man appointed by the Minister originally to hear the appeal, shall know why the Minister has called it in so that they can refresh their representations.
    12.15 a.m.
    I imagine this will be the case where the Minister, having originally intended that it should be heard and decided by an inspector, finds that some political point blows up, Parliamentary Questions are asked, and the Minister feels that he ought to take it away and deal with it himself. Therefore he will be considering a fresh aspect and those concerned ought to be told why he has made that direction.
    All the Clause does at the moment is to say that the Minister must tell the owner of the property if he is not the appellant, or agricultural tenants if they are there. Then we come to the question
    whether those who make representations to the Minister shall have an opportunity of being heard by him. Again, the Clause restricts that only to a few people, the owner who is not the appellant and the agricultural tenants. If they have had an opportunity before they are going to be heard again, and so on.
    I cannot understand Amendment No. 43. I do not think anyone could understand it. It is a mass of words and I do not think we ought to allow that to go into the Bill, firstly, because we cannot understand it, and secondly, because it does not afford an opportunity for those who will be concerned in a hearing of this sort by the Minister to know why he has given the direction, or to have the opportunity of being heard by the Minister.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
    The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 105.

    Division No. 159.]

    AYES

    [12.20 a.m.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardtey)

    MacColl, James

    Archer, Peter

    Faulds, Andrew

    MacDermot, Niall

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McGuire, Michael

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergten)

    Bagier, Gordon A, T.

    Ford, Ben

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Barnett, Joel

    Forrester, John

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Beaney, Alan

    Freeson, Reginald

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Bence, Cyril

    Gardner, Tony

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mapp, Charles

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Marks, Kenneth

    Blackburn, F.

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Marquand, David

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Gregory, Arnold

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Booth, Albert

    Crey, Charles (Durham)

    Millan, Bruce

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Milker, Dr. M. S.

    Brooks, Edwin

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Hamling, William

    Moyle, Roland

    Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)

    Hannan, William

    Murray, Albert

    Brown,Bob(N c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Newens, Stan

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Ogden, Eric

    Buchan, Norman

    Haseldine, Norman

    O'Malley, Brian

    Chapman. Donald

    Hazall, Bert

    Orbach, Maurice

    Coe, Denis

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Orme, Stanley

    Coleman, Donald

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Concannon, J. D.

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Owtn, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Dalell, Tam

    Hoy, James

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Hughes, Emrys (Aryshire, S.)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hunter, Adam

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Dimpsey, James

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenfe'gh)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Dewar, Donald

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Pentland, Norman

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Dickens, James

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Doig, Peter

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rees, Merlyn

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwynrth (Exeter)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Lawson, George

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Eadie, Alex

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Rose, Paul

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Ellis, John

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Sheldon, Robert

    English, Michael

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Ennals, David

    Lubbock, Eric

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Slater, Joseph

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Small, William

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Wallace, George

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Stone house, John

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Woof, Robert

    Taverne, Dick

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Yates, Victor

    Tinn, James

    Wellbeloved, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Urwin, T. W.

    Whitaker, Ben

    Mr. Neil McBride and

    Varley, Eric G.

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Mr. Alan Fitch.

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Percival, Ian

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Peyton, John

    Astor, John

    Grieve, Percy

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Awdry, Daniel

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Pym, Francis

    Black Sir Cyril

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Holland, Philip

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hordern, Peter

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N & M)

    Hunt, John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whltby)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Silvester, Frederick

    Clegg, Walter

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Cooke, Robert

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Kirk, Peter

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Daiketh Earl of

    Kitson, Timothy

    Speed, Keith

    Dance, James

    Lane, David

    Stainton, Keith

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Langford-Holt, SirJohn

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    MacArthur, Ian

    Temple, John M.

    Doughty Charles

    Maddan, Martin

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edwartl

    Maginnis, John E.

    Wall, Patrick

    Eden, Sir John

    Maxwell-Hysiop, R. J.

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Webster, David

    Eyre, Reginald

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Farr, John

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Molloy, William

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Foster, Sir John

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Worsley, Marcus

    Gibson-Watt, David

    More, Jasper

    Wright, Esmond

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Wylie, N. R.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Murton, Oscar

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gower, Raymond

    Nott, John

    Mr. Anthony Royle and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

    Grant, Anthony

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Clause 23.
    REPEAL OF EXISTING PROVISIONS FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND.
    Mr. Oscar Murton: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 20, line 7, leave out 'and' and insert:
    'in an area for which a local plan shall have been adopted and at the same time in such an area'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are discussing Amendment No. 45, in page 20, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert:
    (d) that it is necessary that the land should be acquired immediately for the purpose of securing its use in a manner not inconsistent with the use proposed for it by the local plan for the area in which it is situate.
    Mr. Murton: I would like to deal with the related Amendment, No. 45. There was considerable discussion in Committee about 24(1){b) as it appeared in the
    704
    original Bill, and the main point of the discussion was the word "expedient". We felt that this gave the Government too great a power in how this matter should be applied. We were most anxious that we should ensure that it must be shown in the local plan. For that reason, we have put down this Amendment to replace "expedient" by "necessary". If this land is to be acquired, it is important that it should be related to the local plan, and that wider powers should not be given.
    Mr. MacDermot: I hope there is no misunderstanding, but I find it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's arguments to the Amendment called. As I understand it, the effect of Amendment No. 44 would be to provide that Sections 67 and 68 of the 1962 Act and Section 47 of the Post Office Act, 1963, should cease to have effect only in an area, for which a local plan has been adopted.
    Mr. Murton: If I might interrupt, I was speaking to Amendment No. 45.
    12.30 a.m..
    Mr. MacDermot: I take it that the Opposition are not pressing Amendment No. 44.
    Amendment No. 45 replaces the word "expedient" by the word "necessary", but it also makes another quite substantial change; namely, to bring back the link between the power to acquire under this paragraph and the development plan—inded, the development plan at the local plan stage.
    One of the purposes of Clauses 23 and 24 is to break the link which previously existed by the designation procedure. I agree that the Amendment does not seek to restore such a tight link as that and to tie the compulsory acquisition powers directly to the plan, but it still links the acquisition closely to the terms of a local plan.
    I remind the House that this provision, and the introduction of this power in Clause 24(1)(d), is the result of a recommendation of the Planning Advisory Group when it was considering its predecessor, Section 68(l)(b) of the 1962 Act. The Planning Advisory Group considered that
    "it would be possible to relate the power to the provisions of local plans, but this would tend to introduce controversial issues of acquisition into the discussion of local plans, including action area plans, which we are anxious to avoid "—
    which we are, too.
    It went on:
    "The right time to contest acquisition is when the land needs to be acquired and the compulsory purchase order is made.
    "We therefore recommend that in place of this power of acquisition, the provisions of Section 38(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, should be reintroduced. This was originally designed to meet the needs of the period before development plans became operative. It enabled authorities to acquire any land which the Minister was satisfied should be acquired for a purpose which appeared to him to be immediately necessary in the interests of the proper planning of the area. The acquiring authority would have to make the case for acquisition on the basis of specific proposals. A residual power of this kind will certainly be needed if authorities are to be encouraged to adopt a more positive and constructive approach to environmental planning and to make full use of the action area concept, particularly in areas requiring comprehensive improvement rather than redevelopment."
    706
    That is rather a lengthy quotation, but it fully sets out the argument and the thinking which underlies Clause 24(1)(d) and shows the reasons why we are anxious not to link it in this way to the local plan. There may be occasions when it is important to make acquisitions under this power and where there may, as yet, not have been prepared a local plan for the locality. Clearly in such a case the planning authority would have to make very plain, and argue fully, the planning merits of the proposed acquisition, because the Minister would have to be satisfied that the acquisition was
    "necessary in the interests of the proper planning of the area."
    I am advised that the sort of case in which acquisitions are made now under the paragraph which this replaces, namely, Section 68(1)(b) of the 1962 Act, include such matters as the acquisition of land for the purposes of an industrial estate. I concede that in most cases if an acquisition was to be made for those purposes, a local plan would have been prepared. But we know that there will be a period, particularly in the introduction of the new system, when authorities will be preparing their structure plans, proceeding to their action area plans as the first local plans, and then to other local plans. But it may sometimes be necessary for them to make acquisitions of this kind without an approved local plan and for these reasons we must advise the House not to restore this direct link with the development plan but to leave it to the planning authority to be required to make out its case on planning grounds at the time of the compulsory purchase order.
    Mr. Speaker: We are debating Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 together, but representations have been made to me that I should allow a Division on Amendment No. 45 instead of No. 44. I am happy to accede to that request.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
    What the Minister of State has just said has made matters worse. Now, the designations on the development plan will become meaningless as soon as the Bill becomes law. Therefore, there will be no development plan designation for a property owner to refer to or a local plan showing the intentions over his property and area. I had hoped that Amendment

    707
    No. 44, which called attention to this, was merely declaratory of what was intended.
    At present, before property can be compulsorily acquired by the local authority, it has to be designated in the development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition for some specific purpose, and this is the basis of our law of compulsory acquisition. The public is given that warning, and the owner of property knows that, at some time in the future he may suffer a compulsory purchase order.
    I had hoped that it was the intention, under Clauses 23 and 24, that that procedure would remain until there was a local plan, so that the owners of property in the area would know the purpose of the planning authority. That was the purpose of Amendment No. 44. If that is not to happen. Amendment No. 45 becomes all the more important. There will be a gap between the abolition of designation on a development plan and the production of a local plan, and in that gap the local authority will have extensive powers of compulsory purchase, if paragraph (d) remains, since it provides that the local authority merely has to say
    "that it is expedient to acquire the land immediately for a purpose which it is necessary to acheve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated."
    There could hardly be a wider power, and the Amendment seeks to restrict it to purposes within the meaning of a local plan, and we would provide for the land to be acquired immediately
    "… for the purpose of securing its use in a manner not inconsistent with the use proposed for it by the local plan".
    in requiring the local authority to designate it in the local plan as subject to compulsory purchase.
    To that extent, we are getting away from the existing procedure, which may have been rather, in disregarding some sort of designation altogether, at least to give the public warning by means of the uses proposed in the local plan.
    We on this side of the House think, this is one of the most important points in the Bill. We are, in Clause 24, extending very considerably the powers of a local authority to acquire property compulsorily, and to acquire it without giving warning of the specific purpose for which
    708
    it acquires it. We would wish to restrict the power so that the public and the owners of property do have some sort of warning, and are able to plan ahead, and know when they may expect in their area a development which may produce compulsory purchase orders on their property. Therefore we ask the Minister to consider again whether our draft—in Amendment No. 45—of paragraph (d) is not far better and far more protective of the individual, and not necessarily too restrictive of the local authority, and that he will accept our Amendment.
    Sir J. Foster: I want to add one word. There is a class of persons it is very necessary to protect—the new owners, the persons thinking of settling down, who are about to retire and who invest their life savings in their new home. At the moment such a person can look at the local plans and get some idea whether he will be liable to having his property compulsorily acquired. If there is this general power, after making the fullest inquiry he can, he cannot see that the property is likely to be compulsorily acquired, and he puts his life savings into it—and then his property is compulsorily acquired, the compensation is not enough, and he is disturbed. I think this small safeguard for which we ask is necessary for him.
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not think that the point, in practice, works out quite the way the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting. It would be so if in fact the designation procedure had worked the way it was intended to, but, as we all know, it has not. There is the development plan; the prospective purchaser may look at it and say, "I am all right" and he buys; and then the local authority wants to acquire. What happens now is that we have a double-barrelled application of c.p.o. and amendment of the development plan; we get designation being contemporaneous, and not in advance with the sort of warning which is required. We believe that as we go over to the new system of the structure plan and with the local plans within that, a very much better and more certain picture will emerge for the future. Probably most of the problems we are dealing with are transitional problems; for some years ahead we shall be in a transitional phase from the old to the new system.

    709
    It is not as though there will be a complete gap, because existing development plans—for what they are worth: I have pointed out their limitations—will continue, but in fact, if we get a departure from the existing development plans, and a new local plan is drawn up for the area, the citizen will certainly be no worse off than he is at present.
    Mr. Murton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 24
    COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND IN CONNECTION WITH DEVELOPMENT AND FOR OTHER PLANNING PURPOSES.
    Amendment proposed: No. 45, in page 20, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert:
    (d) that it is necessary that the land should be acquired immediately for the purpose of securing its use in a manner not inconsistent with the use proposed for it by the local plan for the area in which it is situate.—[Mr. Rippon.]
    Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
    The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 150.

    Division No. 160.]

    AYES

    [12.45 a.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Grant, Anthony

    Peyton, John

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Astor, John

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Pounder, Rafton

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

    Grieve, Percy

    Price, David (EasMeigh)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Pym, Francis

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Boardman, Tom

    Hiley, Joseph

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Rossi, Hugh (Hontsey)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Holland, Philip

    Royle, Anthony

    Bruce-Cardyne, J.

    Hordern, Peter

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N & M)

    Hunt, John

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Silvester, Frederick

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Clegg, Walter

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

    Cooke, Robert

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Kirk, Peter

    Speed, Keith

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kitson, Timothy

    Stainton, Keith

    Dance, James

    Lane, David

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Temple, John M.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    MacArthur, Ian

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Doughty, Charles

    Maddan, Martin

    Wall, Patrick

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Maginnis, John E.

    Weatherhill, Bernard

    Eden, Sir John

    Maxwell-Hysiop, R. J.

    Webster, David

    Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Eyre, Reginald

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Williams, Donald (Dudley)

    Farr, John

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Fortescue, Tim

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Worsley, Marcus

    Foster, Sir John

    Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)

    Wright, Esmond

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Murton, Oscar

    Wylie, N. R.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Nott, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Mr. Jasper More and

    Gower, Raymond

    Percival, Ian

    Mr. Hector Monro.

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Archer, Peter

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Ellis, John

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Buchan, Norman

    English, Michael

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

    Chapman, Donald

    Ennals, David

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Coe, Denis

    Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Coleman, Donald

    Faulds, Andrew

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)

    Barnett, Joel

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Bence, Cyril

    Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Ford, Ben

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Dempsey, James

    Forrester, John

    Blackburn, F.

    Dewar, Donald

    Freeson, Reginald

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Gardner, Tony

    Booth, Albert:

    Dickens, James

    Garrett, W. E.

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Doig, Peter

    Gourlay, Harry

    Brooks, Edwin

    Dunnett, Jack

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)

    Gregory, Arnold

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, provan)

    Eadie, Alex

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthersen)

    Rose, Paul

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Hamling, William

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Sheldon, Robert

    Hannan, William

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Harper, Joseph

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mapp, Charles

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Haseldine, Norman

    Marks, Kenneth

    Slater, Joseph

    Hazell, Bert

    Marquand, David

    small, William

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Spriggs Leslie

    Homer, John

    Millan, Bruce

    Steet, David (Roxburgh)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Taverne, Dick

    Hoy, James

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Tinn, James

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Moyle, Roland

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Murray, Albert

    varley, Eric G.

    Hunter, Adam

    Newens, Stan

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

    Ogden, Eric

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Orbach, Maurice

    Wallace, George

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Orme, Stanley

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Whitaker, Ben

    Lawson, George

    Palmer, Arthur

    Williams, Clifford (Abertrillery)

    Leadbltter, Ted

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Willis, Rt. Hn. George

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Pentland, Norman

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Woof, Robert

    McBride, Neil

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Yates, Victor

    MacColl, James

    Price, William (Rugby)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Rees, Meriyn

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Mr. Alan Fitch and

    McGuire, Michael

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Mr. J. D. Concannon.

    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 21, line 4, leave out from 'and' to end of line 6 and insert:
    'with the Greater London Council'.
    Mr. Speaker, would it be convenient to deal with Amendment No. 47 at the same time?
    Mr. Speaker: If there is no objection, so be it.
    Mr. Skeffington: On 26th March we had an interesting discussion in Committee about the position of the G.L.C. As a result of an undertaking I gave, the Opposition withdrew their Amendment which purported to give the powers contained in the Clause to the G.L.C. Amendment No. 46 now does that. Amendment No. 47 makes provision for the necessary consultations between the G.L.C. and the London boroughs and brings them into line with the arrangements for planning authorities outside the Greater London area.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 47, in page 21, line 12, leave out 'London boroughs and county districts' and insert:
    'and county districts, the Greater London Council and councils of London boroughs'.— [Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 27
    GROUNDS ON WHICH MINISTER MAY REFUSE TO CONFIRM PURCHASE NOTICE.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 22, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
    The position here, as I understand, is that of the planning permission which has been granted in respect of the development of an estate, where the permission contains conditions that parts of the land should be left for open spaces. If a planning permission contains that condition, it would be wrong for the developer to make a further planning application at a later date to develop those open spaces and, upon refusal of that planning application, to claim that he has no reasonable beneficial use of the land and that he should therefore receive compensation for refusal of planning permission. If a condition has been imposed that, in making one development he should leave certain land vacant, it would be most improper if he were to benefit from the refusal of planning permission later for the development of that land.
    As I understand it, the prime purpose of the Clause is to declare that in those circumstances the developer shall

    713
    not receive any compensation for being refused planning permission, even though the refusal makes the land of no reasonable beneficial use. But the Clause goes much further. It provides for this rule to apply not only when a specific condition has been imposed to keep a certain part of the estate vacant and undeveloped but when the local planning authority in granting the first planning permission contemplated that some of the land would be left as an open space and undeveloped.
    The Clause says that when land has a restricted use by virtue of a previous planning permission and permission is then refused the owner shall not be entitled to serve a purchase notice. Subsection (2) says that it is to be treated as having a restricted use if it is part of a larger area in respect of which planning permission was previously granted and, in paragraph (a), a specific condition was imposed, or, in paragraph (b),
    "the planning permission was granted on an application which contemplated (expressly or by necessary implication) that the part should not be comprised in the development for which planning permission was sought, or should be preserved or laid out as aforesaid."
    How is the applicant to know what was in the minds of the local planning authority when it first granted the planning permission if it did not put it into the permission as a condition?
    As I read it, paragraph (b) would go much further than imposing an implied restriction on the applicant's land. A local planning authority might well have contemplated that the adjacent land would be vacant in future. If it contemplated that and the owner of that vacant land some years later asked for planning permission the local planning authority could say, "No. Some years ago we contemplated, when giving planning permission for the neighbouring land, that you would keep this as an open space." Under those circumstances it would be fair for the owner of that land to say," You have refused me reasonable beneficial use of my land and I am entitled to serve a purchase notice under Section 129 of the 1962 Act."
    The paragraph seems to go much further than is necessary or reasonable to prevent the mischief which I willingly concede exists, the mischief of someone trying to gain an advantage from the
    714
    fact that he has developed an area on condition that he leaves certain land vacant and then saying, "I want to develop it. If you refuse me the right to do so I shall put in a purchase notice." That is wrong, but if he does not know after the first planning permission has been granted what implied conditions the local planning authority has contemplated at the time it is grossly unfair to tie him to those implied conditions, when they are not put in his planning permission and are not expressed anywhere, because the paragraph says specifically that the Clause is to apply to conditions which were contemplated "expressly or by necessary implication" when the first planning permission was granted.
    Mr. Skeffington: We had an interesting discussion on 26th March on this point. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has accepted that when a specific condition is laid down, it would be wrong to say, "I want to develop on the open space or amenity land", and serve a purchase notice. In an application which came before the planning committee and upon which permission was given where the developer has secured planning permission for the whole of the area because of something which he put in the application without which he might not have got the permission or would have had a condition attached, this case is precisely the same as where a specific condition has been attached. Permission would never have been given in the first place if the layout had not been of sufficient merit to get the sanction of the local planning authority. In those circumstances, a scheme having been approved and the development having been allowed, it is wrong that the developer should at a later stage say, "I do not want to keep this now. I want to build upon it, and serve a purchase notice and compel the authority to pay compensation".
    Two points in rebuttal of the hon. Gentleman's argument are these. First, this is an application which the developer has made; it is not something thought up by the planning authority. Secondly, this can relate only to land in the applicant's area. This is clear from subsections (1) and (2). For these reasons, we can see, in practice, no difference between

    715
    the two categories. It would be most unfair if the local planning authority had to pay compensation in this case.
    Mr. Graham Page: If the land belongs to some other party, do I understand that this still applies? Is that other party prevented from putting in a planning application in relation to that land?
    Mr. Skeffington: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. May I assume that he is referring to planning permission for any land which has a restricted use by virtue of the previous planning permission or which relates to the land of the applicant's area? If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there might be somebody else seeking planning permission, I cannot see how this could operate. If the original scheme had been passed because of the merits of the layout, this will apply equally. On the other hand, the Clause cannot bite on land which was not the subject of the previous planning decision.
    Mr. Page: Take the example of two fields next to one another. A planning application does not necessarily have to refer only to the applicant's land. He can put in an application relating to his neighbouring land. He can say that he will develop field A, and he can show on the plan that field B is to be left vacant to provide a nice view for the development on A. The owner of field B can come along some years later and put in an application to develop B, and he would be told that in contemplating the first application it was thought that B would be left vacant. Will this prejudice the second applicant when he applies for development permission for his own land? That is how I interpret paragraph (b).
    Mr. Skeffington: The owner will have to be told of any planning permission which relates to other land. There would not be a planning application in relation to the other land, as I see it. If the consideration of the merits of the development includes land in the developer's area, quite clearly the provisions of paragraph (b) apply. If it is an alternative additional scheme outside, I do not think they apply.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 28
    NEW DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND QUALIFYING FOR PROTECTION AS BEING AFFECTED BY PLANNING PROPOSALS.
    Mr. E. Rowlands: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 22, line 38, after 'a', insert 'proposed'.
    Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with Amendment No. 52 we take Amendment No. 53, in page 22, line 38, leave out second ' in force '.
    Amendment No. 54, in page 22, line 45, after 'a', insert 'proposed'.
    Amendment No. 55, in page 22, line 45, leave out from 'plan' to 'as' in line 46 and insert:
    'for the time being applicable to the district in which it is situated and any alterations thereto (including a plan or alterations made available for inspection in pursuance of (Publicity for Preparation of Local Plans) (2) of this Act, but not yet in force), or is land defined in such a plan or such alterations'.
    and Amendment No. 56, in page 22, line 45, leave out 'in force'.
    Mr. Rowlands: We spent a lot of time in Committee debating the Clause and the matters relating to planning blight, but we did not come to a conclusive decision. The Committee evenly divided on the subject, with the result that the status quo was preserved only by the vote of the Chairman. It is important that we should return to this subject and to these Amendments.
    The question resolves around the right of an individual to serve a purchase notice when his property has been blighted by planning proposals. Under the provisions of the 1962 Act the right is operable only when the development plan has been approved. Although Clause 28 is intended to cover structure plans when approved, as my hon. and learned Friend said in Committee, this does not in any way change the principle relating to the right of the individual to serve a purchase notice. The Amendments aim to change the principle.
    Our argument is that the notion of planning blight, and the hardship and distress caused to individual householders and home holders, is appreciated much more fully than it was when the 1959

    717
    and 1962 Acts embodied legislation relating to purchase orders. When those Acts were introduced we did not realise what planning blight involved. As a result of major town centre schemes which have been proposed, and the planning network road proposals included in the town centre schemes, planning blight has become a familiar term.
    It is now nationally familiar as a result of a T.V. series called "The Newcomers." This features a family in a new town, and the series has recently portrayed the problem of a widow who wanted to sell her house, since it was too large and she had neither the financial means nor the wish to keep it. At the point of sale, discussion of the proposals blighted her property and blighted her sale. The serial did not do justice to her case. I would have written a succeeding episode. In the following episodes, she would have applied to the local authority to purchase her house, under their existing discretionary powers. The local authority would have refused to do so on the ground that no hardship was involved, and she, and the national viewers, would have found that they have no legal rights in such a case. The fate of the widow in "The Newcomers" is that of many of our constituents. We should net let this opportunity pass to do something about it.
    1.15 a.m.
    As my hon. and learned Friend has said, it is expressly concerned with planning legislation as provided in the Town and Country Planning Acts. It has nothing to do with compensation. Our Amendments try to get to grips with the problem. The existing provisions and even the present proposals in Clause 28 confine the right of the individual to serving a purchase notice only when the structure plan is approved. But planning blight does not occur when the deliberations of the council and the Minister are over. It occurs when the proposals are made. Blight moves in overnight. That is the distinction that we try to make in our Amendments, as compared with the proposals in Clause 28.
    I admit that my Amendment is a compromise. I realise that planning blight can occur at an even earlier stage than when the structure plan is produced or published, as these Amendments sug-
    718
    gest. However, my aim is to remove one of the chief objections voiced by the Minister in Committee. He said then that, if the Government accepted the Amendments that we put forward, in the case of a variety of proposals for different road routes, for example, a council would find itself having to purchase properties which, in the end, it might not require.
    My answer to that is that, if the serving of a notice is confined to when the structure plan is produced or published, by that time, such matters as road routes should be fairly firm proposals. One of the nearest examples of the urban structure plan under the Bill is the proposal put forward in Cardiff by Professor Buchanan, which takes a very similar form. When introducing it, he said that his proposals were not made lightly and could not be challenged lightly. Therefore, the effect of road proposals on individual homes cannot be refuted lightly. That is why we suggest that the individual has the right to serve a purchase notice at the stage when the structure plan is produced and published. That should dispose of the Minister's objection that a local authority would be forced to purchase properties which it might not require.
    The other chief objection to our Amendments in Committee was that a local authority would be forced to buy a large number of properties in advance of requirements and would receive an avalanche of requests to purchase. It is said that this would place an enormous financial burden on that local authority. However, the argument takes no account of the much greater burden upon the individual. A local authority might be able to withstand such a burden, but if, as happens in so many cases, a person's house is devalued by half and he finds that he cannot sell his house for half the mortgage that he owes, how much less is he able to withstand the burden?
    This objection shows not only a remarkable lack of understanding for the human and personal hardship caused, but a basic misunderstanding of the position. I reject the idea that there would be an avalanche of requests to purchase. It is the existing position which causes the avalanche. If a person feels that he is a prisoner in his semi-detached house, that he cannot sell it and that, as the

    719
    years go by, there will be even less chance of selling it, it is then that the avalanche occurs. If he has the security of knowing that he can serve a purchase notice, surely he will take a rational decision and, in many cases, will not serve immediate notice on the local authority, but bide his time. Local authorities, instead of receiving an avalanche, will receive a number of individual applications over a period of time.
    This is certainly the pattern that will emerge in my own constituency, I am sure. At the present moment, when people feel they are imprisoned and cannot sell, they are the more determined to try to get out of their properties. The position should not be left as it is. It is impossible to leave the individual in the position of having to rely on an advisory Circular which is often ignored by the planning authority. It has been ignored in Cardiff, and I am sure by other planning authorities. It is restrictive and depends on the individual proving hardship.
    Why should a person have to have a nervous breakdown before he can sell his house, or compulsory promotion by the Civil Service before he is entitled to seek a decision from the local planning authority? Why should he have to suffer hardship before he can serve a purchase notice? To put an individual in this position is ridiculous and degrading.
    Whatever the practical difficulties are of implementing these Amendments, whatever the pros and cons, it must be said that planning legislation is aimed at holding the balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the community. In my opinion, under the present provisions relating to planning blight and the serving of a purchase notice, the individual gets a raw deal. If it is argued that the local authority cannot afford to finance the purchase of these properties in advance of requirement, then I think we should assert the golden principle of planning—that if the community cannot afford to give the individual a square deal then it cannot afford the development at all.
    For this reason, I am moving this Amendment.
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Rowlands) always argues his case most persuasively, and speaking for myself—and I think other hon. Members—one always listens with the greatest pleasure to his speeches.
    I confess at once that the case he makes out is a forceful one, and I do not pretend it is an easy one to reply to. Let me begin by reminding the House of what we have made clear from the start of this Bill—that it is a Town and Country Planning Bill which does not set out to be a compensation Bill to amend the compensation law. We have certain compensation provisions, including this extension of blight compensation provisions, because some amendments to the compensation law were absolutely necessary in consequence of the changes in planning law which are being made. We have adhered firmly to that principle in the Bill.
    I told the House that there are a number of compensation matters which I would have been glad of an opportunity to try to deal with in this Bill, but I realised that if I sought to do that I would be opening the door to many other proposals to alter compensation law and we would have on our hands what is already a sufficiently complex Bill turned into a mammoth Bill.
    As hon. Members know, very careful studies and memoranda have been prepared and submitted to our Ministry for amendment of the compensation code. These are under careful consideration, and that applies to the field of blight and the kind of matters which my hon. Friend has been referring to.
    My hon. Friend rejected, I thought a little summarily, my argument that there was a connection between what he is asking for and compensation for planning blight and the general compensation code. I urge upon him that there is such a connection. He is asking us to widen compensation for planning blight so that it would cover cases where, at the end of the day, the person's land may never be taken at all. We all know that one of the grounds most strongly urged for revision of the compensation code is where people are affected injuriously by works which are being carried out but where their land is not taken. The motorway case is the familiar example. The

    721
    person whose land is not taken may nevertheless be subjected to nuisance and to having the value of his land depreciated by the motorway and he does not have the right to compensation.
    If one were to admit the principle of extension of blight compensation in the way my hon. Friend suggests, one would be brought face to face with that other issue and any solution must be coherent and defensible across the board. This is just to explain to the House the sort of complexities raised in proposals of this kind.
    What we have done here—and it is accepted as right—is to extend the right to claim planning blight from the much more general and vaguer proposals contained in structure plans to those contained in existing development plans with their precise designations. But we propose that that right should only exist from the time when the structure plan has been approved by the Minister, and that corresponds to the existing provisions where the planning applied in relation to the development plans only operates from the time those plans are confirmed.
    It would be anomalous if one had a situation in which some part of the country had gone over to the new system of planning blight rights whereas other areas were still operating on the old development plan system. That would not be defensible.
    My hon. Friend did not define what he meant by the word "proposed". In reading his Amendments, I thought he meant at the preparatory stage when proposals are published and subject to publication procedures. I think he indicated that this was not what he had in mind and I suppose that he actually means when the formal stages have begun. I think that is also implicit in Amendment No. 55, where the Opposition propose it to apply where local plan proposals have been made available for inspection, which would mean when the formal stages of the adoption began. Then the planning blight provisions would be comparable.
    For the general reasons I have given, I do not think that it would be right for us to go even that far. I hope that what I have said indicates that I am not try-
    722
    ing to slam the door on principle against what has been proposed. Nor do I suggest that I am committing the Government to legislation in this respect in order to deal with it. But this is part of a whole complex of proposals we are studying fully and carefully at present. Meanwhile, I take the point about the fact that the circular urging local authorities to use their discretionary powers to acquire such land in cases where hardship is caused is not being uniformly applied by local authorities throughout the country.
    1.30 a.m.
    Once this Bill has been passed we propose, in the circular we shall send out explaining these new blight provisions, to state again the principles on which local authorities will proceed. By "hardship" we do not mean, in my hon. Friend's phrase, that people would have to have a nervous breakdown before they would be able to persuade a local authority that they are suffering hardship sufficient to justify that local authority acquiring their land before the stage when it could legally be made to do so. In spite of the spirit in which I have replied to the Amendment, I must ask the House to reject it.
    Mr. Graham Page: We agree with the Minister that this is not a compensation Bill—we will expect more when that Bill comes forward. This deals with one narrow point, on what is not, strictly, compensation as such, but the power of the owner-occupier, in particular the residential owner-occupier, to oblige a local authority to acquire his property. That is the narrow front of compensation dealt with in the Bill, and dealt with by these Amendments. The argument that this is not a compensation Bill should not weigh against Amendments of this sort, which are directly related to the provisions of the Bill. They have to do with purchase notice, the amendment of the law as it affects the purchase notice, and the qualifications for serving such a notice.
    The Minister quoted the motorway cases and said that by accepting these Amendments we would be opening the door to claims to treat fairly those injuriously affected but whose land is not taken away compulsorily, or who are not

    723
    directly affected by proposed development. This is incorrect. At present the person not directly affected by the development would not have the right to serve a purchase notice, and these Amendments would not change that. They would only say that a person directly affected could claim when actual blight exists, and not only when some theoretical blight or some stage is reached in the process.
    This is not drawing a line between what is blight and what is not, but is drawing a fictitious line somewhere along the production of development proposals. To succeed with a purchase notice, the owner-occupier serving it must prove that he has been unable to dispose of his property at the price which it was reasonable to expect for it, had it not been subject to development proposals. There is no extension of that principle. The person has to show that the property really has become blighted by the proposals. At present he has to show that the property has become blighted to the extent that he cannot sell it at the price that he ought to have been able to sell it. Then he comes up against the brick wall that it must be shown, somewhere on the plan, to be subject to development. In Amendment 55 we have taken words which appears elsewhere in the Bill. In paragraph 58, page 94, the Bill gives the right to the Land Commission to exercise compulsory purchase powers if it can show that there are matters in the draft local plan, or the copy of the local plan before it becomes a formal plan, showing certain developments.
    It has been recognised there that the plan at the stage when it is prepared and is to be submitted to the Minister has an effect on the properties there shown. We have merely taken those words and said in effect that the Land Commission should not be given this privilege, that this can be applied to the ordinary individual. This is a stage at which his land becomes blighted, when it is shown in the local plan to be subject to development. It is a false distinction to say that it is not blighted until the Minister has approved the plan.
    Of course, blight attaches to a property immediately the public know that it is
    724
    subject to this form of development. The public do not know any more about it, and it will not affect the purchase any more because the Minister has approved the plan. It will affect them immediately it is made public. That is when we say that blight starts and when the owner should be able to make a purchase notice. We are trying to get to the point where blight occurs, and away from some false distinction and unreal line drawn in the process of development proposals.
    It would be much fairer to have this stage at the point where it is known to the public, to prospective purchasers of this property, that this is the effect of the plan. Where it is a formal plan, the Minister's stamp on it does not matter. Where a plan is published as being the final thoughts of the local planning authority, everyone believes that it will be the final plan. It would be an extraordinary and exceptional case where a Minister sends a plan back to a local authority to think about it again, so to put the blight stage at the point of adoption is false, and we would prefer to put it back to where the plan is proposed by the local planning authority.
    I hope that we can have some better assurances from the Minister. I would have liked to have seen it in this Bill. Possibly our drafting is not correct, but this could be included at a later stage. We should not be asked to wait for the compensation bill for this.
    This Bill deals with purchase notices. If we alter the law about purchase notices in this Bill, I have a feeling that when we have the compensation bill, they will say that the law was reformed on purchase notices as recently as last July and we cannot do it all again, and that the compensation bill is not a purchase notice bill. Let us do it now.
    Mr. Rowlands: I appreciate the sympathetic consideration given to the Amendment, but I reiterate the point I made, that I think it is nothing to do with compensation. We are being told that if one put these Amendments into this Clause, subsequent Clauses could cover cases where people's properties are not involved. If the local authority can show that there is no need or demand for the property, although it might have an injurious effect, the provisions of the Clause would not apply.

    725
    It is entirely concerned with the right to serve a purchase notice which has not been in legislation relating to compensation, but in legislation relating to Town and Country Planning. It is in the 1962 Act and the 1959 Act. For those reasons, the Amendment deserves to be put into the Bill, not in any future Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House at this stage that there are some 40 debates on Amendments ahead of us, apart from those on Government Amendments.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 23, line 4, leave out from ' force' to end of line 10.
    I will take your word of advice, Mr. Speaker, and endeavour to move this Amendment briefly. It is a short point.
    Clause 28(l)(c) states that property is blighted to the extent that a purchase notice may be served if the land is subject to a compulsory purchase order under certain enactments. I have not been able to discover whether the statutes set out there cover all the cases in which a compulsory purchase order can be outstanding on property or whether this is a selection of compulsory purchase orders, and, if it is a selection, why. Is there any principle running through these several different types of compulsory purchase order? Why not leave it merely with the words "if the property is subject to a compulsory purchase order"? Everyone who reads a Bill of this kind knows what a compulsory purchase order is. This would make it clear. If there are other compulsory purchase orders—and I am sure there are—other than those mentioned in the Clause, why are they excluded? Do they not cause just as much blight as those under the Water Act, the Water Resources Act or the New Towns Act?
    Mr. Skeffington: The Government feel disposed to accept the Amendment, although we do not think that it will make any real difference. Nevertheless, for the sake of peace and quiet at this time of the night, this is a good gesture.
    The only possible compulsory purchase order which is not covered is in Section 11 of the Pipelines Act, 1962. But I fail to see how this could give rise to the problems intended to be covered by
    726
    Section 138 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
    The reason that the particular statutes have been spelt out is because we wanted to be sure that the definition was right. No harm will be done in accepting the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 23, line 13, at end insert:
    (d) is land which appears from the route or the approximate route of a proposed road or footpath—

    (i) as shown in the development plan, or

    (ii) as indicated in information received by the local planning authority from the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State (if it be land in Wales) or a local highway authority

    to be land on such road or footpaths may be provided.
    Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 225, in page 87, leave out lines 12 to 24.
    Mr. Allason: Clause 28 lays down a new criteria for blight. In the last discussion we showed that there was a tendency for the blight provisions to be contracted. The blight provisions are extended in the Schedule and by Amendment 225 we should like to bring them into Clause 28 and extend them so that they are logical. The Amendment deals with blight in the path of a proposed road or footpath, which tend to be long term proposals, with completion following after some time.
    1.45 a.m.
    The Minister of State told us that the Bill does not amend compensation, but the 1962 Act laid down conditions for purchase notices which the Bill will change. So the Government cannot say that we cannot extend blight provisions because they relate to compensation. They are redrawing the line and cannot complain at a proposal to redraw it logically. I thought, on the last Amendment, that the Minister of State was about to withdraw Clause 28 altogether, because he was so terrified at changing anything to do with compensation. The new subsection to be inserted in the principal Act, permitting blight in cases of proposed main roads, is very welcome,

    727
    but it is extraordinary to confine it to trunk roads.
    I quoted a case from my constituency of a cafe on the line of a subsidiary road near the line of a by-pass. Had it been on the line of the by-pass, which is to be provided in the early 1970's— the previous Minister of Transport, by a slip of the tongue, referred to "early 1970", but her Department smartly corrected that when we checked—it would have come under these new blight provisions. The subsidiary road is necessary for the by-pass, either to give access or to divert another road beneath the by-pass. This is a ridiculous situation, because, if the blight were caused by the by-pass, a purchase notice would be possible and compensation could be taken; because it is a local road in exactly the same circumstances, this is not possible. The position is that in respect of a local road there are substantial discrepancies.
    This only occurs under Section 138 (1) (f) of the principal Act which reads:
    "is land shown on plans approved by a resolution of a local highway authority as land comprised in the site of a highway as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by that authority."
    The operative words there are
    "approved by a resolution of"
    the authority. In this case, although the route of this road is well known, nevertheless, rather naturally, the local authority has not approved the construction of the road, and, therefore, there can be no compensation. That cafe is absolutely blighted, but, nevertheless, there can be no compensation.
    I cannot see any reason why the two sorts of roads should not be dealt with absolutely pari passu. Therefore, the effect of Amendment No. 58 is to do what paragraph 30 of Schedule 5 does, and, in addition, to include local roads as well. Amendment No. 225 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 58.
    Mr. Skeffington: I shall seek to assure the House that the major points in the two Amendments are already met. The first part of the Amendment would move the main provisions of paragraph 30 of the Schedule from the Schedule and into the body of the Bill, with this additional category of land for which compensation
    728
    proposals for blight will, when the Bill becomes law, apply. There is no clash of principle here. The Government were very anxious to add this additional category where either the route is shown on the development plan or it could be sufficiently precisely indicated by the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for Wales to the local authority as being the route, therefore enabling the consequential benefits of the blight provisions to apply. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, of course, this may come at a very much later stage when a draft order has been confirmed. Had it been possible to have concluded all the preliminary steps which had to be taken before we were in a position to bring this matter before the Committee I think we might have well have put the provision in here, but we had passed Clause 28, and so it was put, not inappropriately, as it happens, in the Schedule.
    So, on the first point, there is no clash of principle. It is a question of convenience, and to transfer the provision now would require a considerable amount of alteration which I could not recommend the House to accept.
    In any event, the matter is further complicated in the Amendment by the reference to footpaths. This is unnecessary because urban footpaths, which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, are either highways of themselves or, if they are not, they are parts of highways and are covered under the definition in the Highways Act. In rural areas, if the hon. Gentleman is thinking of rights of way limited to pedestrians, no problem arises because in the normally accepted use of the word "footpath" it is unlikely—indeed, I cannot imagine how such a case could occur—that cases of blight would occur.
    The third part of the Amendment calls for a notification from the local highway authority and the Ministry of Transport. This is unnecessary because if a road has been approved by a resolution of a local highway authority as land comprised in the site of a highway as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by that authority, it is already covered by Section 138(l)(f) of the 1962 Act. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that any land which the Minister of Transport proposes to provide for a trunk or special road comes within that definition and that every road in the country is covered? I did not gather from what was said in Committee that every road, including every minor road, was covered. Apart from footpaths, the Amendment is designed to cover minor roads provided by local authorities, aside from the main roads provided by the Ministry of Transport.
    Mr. Skeffington: I was making the point that the proposals in the Amendment, in so far as they relate to roads affected by the notification procedure, are not necessary because the matter is covered by Section 138(1)(f) of the 1962 Act. The other types of road— road diversions and roads acknowledged under the Highways Act and so on—are covered by Section 138(l)(e) of the 1962 Act. I was dealing with those categories of roads and was not going beyond that.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Amendment goes a lot further than that, as is its intention. It says, in effect, that property shall be legally blighted, so that a purchase notice could be served, if there is information to the local planning authority from the highway authority, whether it be the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for Wales or the local authority.
    It is in this respect that the Amendment goes further than the Amendment introduced by the Government in Committee. We were pleased when the Government introduced that Amendment, which was to the effect that if the Ministry of Transport gave information to the local planning authority that it intended to build a road in a certain position, then the land there would be treated as blighted, and a purchase notice could be issued. However, we could not see the distinction between Ministry of Transport roads—trunk and special roads—and the ordinary roads of the local authority, since there is just the same possibility of blight.
    As the law stands—and the Parliamentary Secretary cited Section 138(1)(f) of the 1962 Act—to qualify for the service of a purchase notice one must show, first, that the land for the local authority road is shown on a plan. One then
    730
    has to show that it is shown on an approved plan. Then one has to show that it is shown on a plan approved by a resolution of the local highway authority.
    Before all that happens it is well known to the public, through discussions in the council and in the highways committee, that it is intended to put a road in a certain area and property thereby becomes blighted. A false line is drawn at the point where the plan is approved by resolution. We want to push that line further back. The Government have already pushed it back concerning trunk roads and special roads. They have acknowledged the point at which real blight occurs when the Ministry informs the local planning authority. It should be recognised in the case of ordinary roads when information comes from the local planning authority to the local highway authority—which probably is the same—in discussion of plans without waiting for a formal resolution.
    2.0 a.m.
    Mr. Skeffington: I am seized of the point. I had misunderstood the Amendment. I do not know whether that was my fault or whether it was due to the way in which the Amendment is drafted. I had assumed from the wording that the local authority road was one which had already been approved by resolution of the council, which of course, would bring it within the terms of Section 138(1)(f), but I see that the purpose of the Amendment is to do that at an earlier stage.
    In cases where the Government feel that they can move further, there is a road definitely marked on the development plan or one which is indicated in documents which are sufficiently accurate as to the route approved by the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for Wales. If the hon. Member reflects on this he will realise that it is extraordinarily difficult to bring forward blighting consequences until the local authority has reached the stage of precision we are providing for in the development either on the development plan or in documents which come from the Ministers concerned.
    What has been said by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) leads me to believe that the

    731
    blighting consequences might follow preliminary discussions in the council chamber. I do not think this is workable. I do not think one could invite the House to agree to a proposal which depended upon such vague considerations as the hon. Member has outlined.
    Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman has accepted this imprecision in relation to trunk roads and special roads. It needs only a little careful drafting to accept the same sort of imprecision for local highway authority roads, recognising the point at which blight occurs.
    Mr. Skeffington: I was careful in Committee to spell out that in the indications which the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for Wales will give, there will be sufficient indication and precision to enable the local authority to deal with blighting consequences. In what the hon. Member said and what the Amendment provides, there is not sufficient precision and for that reason I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that there is too great precision now in Section 138(1)(f), which says that:
    "land shown on plans approved by a resolution of a local highway authority."
    That means that the authority is about to make up a road rather than that it has got the plan drawn.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 23, line 13, at end insert:
    (d) is land which has suffered subsidence damage as defined by section 1(1) of the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957'.
    Would it be convinent, Mr. Speaker, to discuss also Amendment No. 67, in page 26, line 7, at end insert:
    (4) For the purpose of section 28(l)(d) of this Act and of section 147 of the principal Act the appropriate authority shall be the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes.
    Mr. Page: I am obliged, Sir. This, again, is a question of when blight may occur and when it would be fair to allow the owner-occupier to serve a purchase notice. It is proposed in Amend-
    732
    ment No. 60 that the owner-occupier should be entitled to serve a purchase notice when his land has been blighted by subsidence. Under the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1957, the owner is entitled to claim to have his property repaired if it suffers subsidence damage. Section 1(1) of that Act says:
    "'subsidence damage' means any damage (including an alteration of the level or gradient of property not otherwise damaged such as to affect the fitness of that property for use for the purposes mentioned …"
    in the Act.
    Frequently property is subject to subsidence and becomes impossible to dispose of. Harrowing stories can be related of new property purchased in mining areas by those who may be of very slender means and who have perhaps purchased subject to a building society mortgage; and then frequently, because of new methods of mining, subsidence occurs and the property is severely damaged. The only redress an owner-occupier has is to have his property patched up by the National Coal Board. I say "patched up" deliberately. I have seen such houses. When subsidence occurs, frequently gaps are left in the interior walls—not in the exterior walls, because that would leave the property not wind- and water-tight. The doors are askew. The floors are sloping. Yet the Board claims that the house is fit. It may be fit for the purpose of shelter, but it is not fit as a property and is certainly not saleable.
    In cases where the property has been blighted in this case, greater regard is now paid to the hardship which occurs than was paid even 10 or 11 years ago. Having recognised the purchase notice procedure when property is otherwise blighted, we should recognise it in the case of subsidence. The National Coal Board is responsible for the execution of
    "such works … as may be necessary to render the damaged property reasonably fit for use for the purposes for which, at the date immediately before the damage occurred, it was … used".
    It is not sufficient to compensate those who have had their home so grievously twisted and made so rotten for them in future. It is not sufficient merely to patch it up. They should be able to dispose of the property. They should be able to oblige the Board, which, after all, is responsible for the mining, for the

    733
    subsidence which has occurred and for the damage arising from that subsidence, to purchase the property from them when it gets into that state.
    I appreciate that this is rather remote from what we have previously discussed. But it is strictly connected with a form of blight and with the purchase notice procedure. As we have expanded the purchase notice procedure in other ways, we should recognise the very serious case where mere patching up is insufficient for those who have so suffered by subsidence of their home.
    Mr. Skeffington: I do not know whether it is the early hour or the hon. Gentleman's ingeniousness, but until I saw the Amendment I did not think that we should be discussing compensation due to mining subsidence in a planning Bill.
    The compensation proposals we are introducing and extending here deal with planning blight—depreciation of the value of a property because of the threat or possible threat of acquisition for public purposes. The Bill does not deal with compensation which may arise in a hundred ways as a result of mechanical or other activities. The Amendment would be wholly inappropriate in this Bill.
    The Amendment would also be completely ineffective, and I am surprised, because usually I am filled with admiration for both the ingenious and very comprehensive way in which the hon. Gentleman puts forward his Amendments. It would be ineffective because all that the National Coal Board would have to do would be to serve a counter notice, like any other authority in its category, under Section 140 of the principal Act. Therefore, even if the Amendment were accepted it would have no effect in enabling anybody to get one penny compensation for subsidence.
    Compensation for consequences of mining is governed by the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Acts of 1950 and 1957. I gathered that the hon. Gentleman's point was that the compensation payable under them is insufficient. That may or may not be so. I do not know, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to remedy these matters he must attack another Statute and not the Bill.
    Mr. Graham Page: I had hoped that the Minister might at least say that he had consulted the Minister of Power and that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to consider this. It is a very serious matter. If it cannot be dealt with in a planning Bill, at least we have staked a claim that it should be considered, and the point is not put forward frivolously.
    We should not be prepared to accept the hardship that results from subsidence as the House has done in the past. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will ask his right hon. Friend to read this very short debate, and perhaps it can be dealt with in another way.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the National Coal Board could defeat the provisions of the Amendment by a counter notice. Under Section 140 of the principal Act any local authority can serve a counter notice, but must prove that it has a right to the effects of the notice.
    However, the Amendment has raised the point, and I assure the hon. Gentlemen that my pleading will not cease here. I shall find other opportunities to put this forward, and I hope that this has pushed the door open a little bit.
    Under the circumstances, I recognise that the Amendment is not entirely appropriate for this Bill, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 29.
    EXTENSION OF GROUNDS OF OBJECTION TO PURCHASE OF CLAIMANT'S INTEREST.
    Amendment made: No. 61, in page 23, line 40, after ' (e)' insert ' (ee) '.— [Mr. Skeffington.]
    2.15 a.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 23, line 41, after ' that' to insert ' (a)'.
    Mr. Speaker: We can take at the same time Amendment No. 63 in page 24, line 4, at end insert:
    'and
    (b) the appropriate authority has offered to take a lease of the hereditament or agricultural unit (as the case may be) for the said period upon terms and at a rent to be settled as if such lease were a regulated tenancy under the Rent Act 1965'.
    Mr. Page: Amendment No. 62 is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 63.
    Clause 29 permits an acquiring authority to defeat a purchase notice by the answer that it does not require the property for 15 years. I cannot help feeling that this will not relieve the property of blight in any way. First, there is no obligation on the authority not to change its mind. I doubt whether the public will think that, the local authority having said, "Our present intention is not to acquire the property for 15 years", this will necessarily be its intent throughout the 15 years. There is absolutely no obligation on the local authority to abide by that intention. The very next day it can alter its mind and say, "We now intend to acquire it", and "We now intend to carry out this development". Therefore, the assurance, if assurance it be, is worthless in removing blight. It merely means that the property may have a future life of 15 years. In those circumstances, the authority should be prepared to compensate the owner in some form.
    In all purchase notice cases, we are dealing with an owner who wishes to get out of the property. This is at the basis of a purchase notice. He has to prove to the authority that he has tried to sell the property and cannot sell it at a reasonable price. So first he must show that he is genuinely trying to sell. We are dealing with an owner-occupier who desires to get out of the house. Perhaps he has moved his work and has to go to some other town. This is the basis of the whole proceeding. If he finds that the property is blighted, he cannot sell because the prospective purchasers know about the blight and then serves a purchase notice on the authority and is told, "We do not want it for 15 years". This will not alter his need to get out of the house and to get himself a new home. The authority should compensate him to the extent of providing him with some sort of income from the property which he has to leave. He is unable to sell it at a reasonable price. There is no reason why he should not be able to let it and the authority should be required to offer to take the property on lease.
    I do not think that this can be in any way harmful to the authority. I find that most authorities are only too
    736
    anxious to acquire residential property in order to shorten their waiting lists. This seems a fair compromise if the 15-year rule is to be retained. I do not like the 15-year rule at all. I do not think it relieves the hardship of blight in any way. But if the Government are keen on having it, let us have some sort of compromise, that the owner-occupier will be able to require the local authority to take a lease of the property for that 15 years. He then will be able to obtain an advance on the property so that he may purchase another property where he has to live. This is only a form of compromise. I would like Clause 29 to go altogether, but if it must stay we should relieve the hardship of the owner-occupier who finds his property blighted or semi-blighted in this way.
    Mr. Skeffington: We realise that the Opposition have never liked the 15-year proposal, and I do not want to rehearse all the arguments why it is thought, by individual owners and the rest of the community, that where there is not an immediate use, or where there is no use for 15 years, this piece of mechanism brings in a degree of certainty, which has been accepted by most people outside the House who are interested in the matter.
    The proposal that the hon. Gentleman has put forward would not be very satisfactory, even for the owner. I doubt whether it would be satisfactory for the local authority. I suppose there might be a use for temporary or semipermanent residential accommodation in a suitable property, but the Amendment would apply to a wide range of property. There would be very little in it for the owner. He would be unable to realise his capital if there were merely a lease taken. We have had no indication that local authorities are enthusiastic about the proposal.
    The amendment must be regarded as a general attack on the 15-year proposal, and I could not advise the House to accept it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: No. 64, in page 25, line 2, leave out 'or' and insert:
    'to sell the whole of the hereditament, or (in the case of an agricultural unit) the whole of the affected area, which he has required the authority to purchase.
    (8) Subsection (6) above shall not affect the right of a claimant under'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 30.
    COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND IN CLEARANCE AREAS AND OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
    Amendment made: No. 65, in page 25, line 34, leave out 'section 59 'and insert: 'Part III'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 31.
    MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF PART VIII OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 25, line 46, at end insert:
    (3) In section 138(3)(a) of the principal Act the words 'and the interest in question is the interest of an owner-occupier of the hereditament' shall be omitted.
    This is an amendment to Section 138(3)(a) of the principal Act, namely, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962. Section 138 of the 1962 Act sets out the qualifications for serving a purchase notice and, in particular, the interest which has to be held in the property before one can qualify for serving a purchase notice.
    Subsection (3) of Section 138 reads:
    "An interest in the whole or part of a hereditament shall be taken to be an interest qualifying for protection under these provisions if, on the date of service of a notice under the next following section in respect thereof, either—
    (a) the annual value of the hereditament does not exceed such amount as may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Minister, and the interest in question is the interest of an owner-occupier of the hereditament, or"
    The alternative is
    "in a case not falling within the preceding paragraph, the interest in question is the interest of a resident owner-occupier of a hereditament."
    So, in both cases, one must be the owner-occupier to be entitled to serve a purchase notice. In a case where one is not a resident owner-occupier, the value must not exceed a certain value prescribed by the Minister.
    The Amendment seeks to remove the necessity for being the owner-occupier of the hereditament, and this will apply to business premises. But there would still be the limit of the annual value. So that, if the Amendment were accepted, there would not be a flood of purchase notices of very expensive large properties.
    738
    It would still be restricted to the smaller property coming within the annual value limits, but it would not be restricted to the owner-occupier of that type of property.
    There are many cases in which business premises are not necessarily owner-occupied, yet great hardship may occur from the blighting of those premises to those who have their assets in that business. It seems fair, at this stage of development in our reforms of the purchase notice procedure, that we should recognise the hardship which occurs in those cases by amending the original code, still keeping a limit on the rateable value of the premises, so that claims are made only in respect of comparatively small business but that there should not be this restriction on the rights which affects the form in which the business is held. This is where the hardship frequently occurs.
    Mr. MacDermot: The effect of the Amendment would be to extend the operation of the blight provisions to landlords of hereditaments. This has always been resisted, primarily on the ground that it would place a severe burden on the acquiring authorities.
    There are not the same hardship considerations in such cases as there are with owner-occupiers. Landlords are not likely to be under the same compulsion to sell and, judging by the representations that we have received, there is not the same feeling that they are dealt with unfairly because the blight provisions do not apply to them. Even when they sell, the price is not likely to be affected in the same way as the price paid for property occupied by the purchaser.
    After all, for him the property is an investment and as such is a financial transaction. Since market value would be paid on any ultimate acquisition, the threat of future acquisition should not have the same damaging effect as it does in the case of houses that people buy as their homes. Then again, owner-occupiers are unlikely to sell their properties or businesses unless they genuinely wish to or have to move, whereas a landlord can choose his own time and can foist unwanted property on to a local authority as a way of realising his capital.
    I think I have said enough to show that there are very different considerations

    739
    applicable for the two cases, and we think it right to adhere to the position that has been accepted hitherto.
    Amendment negatived.
    2.30 a.m.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 26, line 12, leave out 'the major' and insert 'a substantial'.
    This is an Amendment which was requested by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He said that the paragraph might be acceptable if it were "a major part" and even more acceptable if it were "a substantial part". I am proposing that it should be more acceptable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 26, line 13, leave out from "the" to end of line 17 and insert:
    'words "six months before the date of service" there shall be substituted the words "twelve months before the date of service"; and if any question arises as mentioned in subsection (3) above, subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) of the said section 149 shall then apply with the substitution for the reference to twelve months before the date of service of a reference to that period extended by so long as it takes to obtain a determination of the question'.
    This Amendment does two things. In the first part it removes a possible ambiguity, which again was pointed out by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). The second part is a further improvement in the protection for the owner-occupier. It deals with the problem of timing that can occur if a question arises as to which is the appropriate authority for the service of a blight notice.
    The effect of the Amendment is that the time required to determine that question does not count against the period within which an owner-occupier remains qualified to serve the notice.
    Mr. Allason: We are grateful to the Minister for this substantial improvement in the Bill. It was a pretty good nonsense, but now at least the casual reader will be able to understand what on earth is meant.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 33.
    NEW PROVISIONS RESTRICTING DEMOLITION ETC. OF LISTED BUILDINGS.
    Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 26, line 45, at end insert—
    (2) If the owner or occupier of a listed building objects to that listing in the manner prescribed to the Minister, the Minister shall give such person an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for that purpose; and the decision of the Minister thereupon shall be deemed to be action on the part of the Minister under section 176(3) of the principal Act.
    Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to hear that we are now moving on to another part of the Bill which is of considerable interest to most hon. Members because it deals with historic buildings.
    The Bill very greatly extends the effects of listing by the Minister. To some listing is a privilege, and to some listing is a nuisance, but I am sure we all agree it is desirable to preserve ancient and historic buildings, and the Bill takes considerable steps in this direction.
    At the same time I think we would agree that it is the duty of the Bill to protect owners in borderline cases from the consequences, sometimes very harsh consequences, of listing.
    In the Committee the Minister of State was discussing the possibility of giving an appeal against listing. We had originally suggested that there ought to be re-listing of every building in the country at present listed because the rules are being changed. The Minister of State said this would be a mammoth task, would unduly strain Government resources, and would be inappropriate.
    So the alternative was the question of of a second appeal against listing, because there are rights of representation and possible appeal against initial listing. We suggested that this should therefore be available upon the Bill taking effect, and the Minister was resisting this. But then he did become convinced that there was a case where there was a wish to appeal at the point of sale. The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
    "I should like to consider the suggestion that has just been made to see whether it is possible to devise a right of appeal at the point of sale. Like the hon. Member. I foresee difficulties of definition as to what is the

    741
    point at which the right of appeal would arise. I should like to think about the matter further." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 2nd April, 1968; c. 794.]
    I can sec that it is difficult to draft restrictions to confine the right of appeal to a bona fide point of sale because who can define a point of sale? It is possible to arrange a bogus offer in order to get an appeal against listing. In consequence, although the Minister promised to look at this again, there is no Government Amendment down to deal with the matter.
    But there should be an appeal against listing. It should not be encouraged but it should be available, because we have admitted that there is a need for an appeal at point of sale, and if there is an admitted need it should be met even if the gates are open wider than the Minister would wish. Therefore, this Amendment provides in simple terms for a right of appeal by the owner or occupier of a listed building to the Minister against the listing. It could be hedged round with further restrictions—for example, that there should be only one right of appeal— but it is desirable that there should be a right of appeal. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows in his heart that this is so.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: The Amendment seeks to protect the owner whose building perhaps only just got on the list and should not perhaps be on it. This difficulty has arisen because the list is very large. The aim of the Ministry is to list every building which could possibly be of historical and architectural importance. I wonder why the Minister rejected the idea of having a graded statutory list. When listing began, the buildings were placed on a provisional list in various grades. Grade I buildings were those of such national and historical interest that there could be no question of their being destroyed except in the gravest national crisis or for some other overwhelming reason, whereas those buildings further down the list were regarded as those which should be preserved if possible but which would have to be removed if development of one sort or another was pressing. If the Minister had adopted the idea of a graded statutory list, many of the difficulties likely to arise would not arise.
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not see how the question of grading would help on this problem about the right of appeal. To answer the hon. Gentleman, I understand that there proved to be difficulties about the definition to write the grading into the Statute. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is grading in practice. There are grade one buildings, of the kind he mentioned, grade two starred, and un-starred and grade three, which are not on the statutory list at all. Administratively this seems to work.
    The hon. Member for Hemel Hemp-stead (Mr. Allason) has relieved me of trying to explain to the House why we have found it impossible to define a category to meet the particular point we were dealing with in Committee. As I predicted, we did not find it possible, although we made great efforts to do so. It is impracticable. We come to the basic question: should there be a universal right of appeal against listing, or should the right of appeal be confined to the points at which the disadvantages, if there be any, of being listed are being felt to the detriment of the owner-occupier, as is the case with the Bill as drafted.
    For example, if he wants to do some work to his building and is refused consent, he can then appeal against the listing. When an enforcement notice is served upon him, and he thinks that the building is wrongly listed, one of the grounds on which he can appeal against the notice is by saying that the building ought never to have been listed. The reason why we have confined it in this way is administrative. It is that there is a limited number of highly skilled staff doing this work. Everyone interested in the subject agrees that what is imperative is to finish the first listing, which is very nearly completed. There are about four districts left in the country.
    Then we have to finish the revision, which has already been started in many areas, and which is likely to lead to a substantial increase in the number of listed buildings—perhaps as much as a 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. increase. That is a task which will take many years to achieve, even though we have authority to double the staff doing this work. Knowing the restriction on expansion of

    743
    civil servants, this is an earnest of the seriousness we attach to this work.
    Even with a doubling of the staff, it will take many years to complete this work. If we had a universal system of appeals those staffs would be liable, at any moment to be called from their work in order to travel maybe across the country, to attend some inquiry to give evidence and defend their listing. We feel that this system would cause the administrative machinery to break down, and hold up the whole system. That is why we are confining the right to firm appeals, to the point where it hurts. There is an informal remedy, which has real value, and which is always available. It is that anyone whose building is listed, who wants to know the reasons for that listing, if he wishes to challenge it, has only to write to the Ministry and ask. He will be provided with a full written statement of the reason for the listing.
    If then, objections in writing are made about those, they will be considered and the listing will be reconsidered in the light of those objections. This is an informal right of appeal, but it will not have the same time-consuming effect upon the skilled staff as would result if we were to give a universal right of appeal.
    Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Is this informal type of appeal subject to the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner in the event of a complaint?
    Mr. MacDermot: Yes. These are officials acting on behalf of our Department.
    Mr. Allason: The Minister has admitted that there is a requirement for the appeal at point of sale that he wished to find, but could not.
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member is putting words into my mouth. If hon. Members want me to go into this, I would say that, with my colleagues, I thought that, not only is it difficult of definition, but that it is very hard to find an identifiable case where any real hardship would be suffered by a person at the point of sale which he could not overcome by putting in planning application.
    2.45 a.m.
    Mr. Allason: I am grateful to him. I was coming to that. The appeal is that the building should not have been listed in the first place and that it is not of sufficient merit to go into the new listing system which has a tough series of requirements, while it might have gone in under the old list. The Minister of State has said that other ways are open. He mentioned the informal approach to the Ministry which may help on some occasions and may indicate to an owner that the building has hidden merits which he did not recognise. This may put him off going to appeal. If he still wants to go to appeal, the Minister of State says that he should submit a bogus application for listed building consent when he wishes to sell the building.
    The prospective purchaser might say that he is not taking on a commitment to purchase a listed building which could never be altered and has to stand for ever, and which would involve an expensive repair liability that he would not meet. The owner says: "Would it not be better to get it off the list. I do not see that it has any particular merit". He then submits an application to demolish something which it is not in the mind of the owner to do at all, but it is made in order to get a refusal from the local planning authority, and then to be able to appeal against the refusal. I call that a bogus application. The Minister may have more polite words, but we used "bogus" on Committee without giving offence to anybody. If we are to have this sort of appeal, it would be better to get it done in the way suggested, and above board.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 27, line 6, at end insert:
    (3) For the purposes of this part of this Act, any object or structure fixed to a building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of a building shall be treated as part of the building.
    This has already been discussed.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I want to ask a question—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It has already been discussed.
    Mr. Skeffington: I referred to it in the debate on Tuesday morning when it was discussed.
    Mr. Cooke: Is there any objection if we ask for further elucidation?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the Amendment was discussed with a previous Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 27, line 12, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    This is the first of a series of drafting Amendments. The others are: 74, 78, 79, 81 to 88, 90 to 92, 96–107, 109 to 111, 166, 168, 170–175, 177–182, 184, 185, 187 to 194, 196 to 204, 206, 208, 229 to 231, 233, 235, 236, 238, 241, and 244 to 247.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 27, line 15, at end insert 'and'.
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. Allason: I do not agree that it is a drafting Amendment. This is of considerable importance. Under this an owner of a listed building has to go through two hoops, not one, in the event of wanting to demolish the building. In the past the owner of a listed building who wanted to demolish it had to notify the Royal Commission of his intention to demolish, and, I think, the local planning authority. He had to give two months' notice so that the possibility of a building preservation order being served could be considered. Under the 1967 Act this period was extended to six months. Now he not only has to give notice to the Royal Commission, but he also has to get listed building consent from the local planning authority. It was not clear from the drafting that (a) and (b) of Clause 33(3) were complementary. There was not an "or" or an "and" in between them. This puts in an "and" which makes it clear that they are complementary. We welcome that we should have it, but it was a matter which could have caused confusion in view of the previous state of the game before the Amendment was made.
    Mr. MacDermot: The purpose of a drafting Amendment is to make clearer the drafting.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that we shall not spend a lot of time on purely drafting Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 74, in page 27, line 20, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 75, in page 27, line 42, after 'executing', insert
    'or causing to be executed any'—[Mr. Skeffington.]
    Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. I am not clear whether, by the Parliamentary Secretary reading out a whole list of Amendments, rather like a Bingo caller, we have passed all those Amendments before we have reached them. He read them out. I do not know whether he is saying that we were discussing them with each other or whether, when somebody said "Aye" after that, we passed Amendments to the end of the Bill before ever getting to them.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: They have all been discussed, so no further debate on them is possible.
    Amendment made: No. 245, in page 27, line 42, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 28, line 32, at end insert—
    (8) Before giving a direction under subsection (7) above in relation to a building, the Minister shall consult with the local planning authority and with the owner and the occupier of the building.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 76, in page 28, line 27, after 'direct', insert
    'after consultation with the local planning authority, the owner and the occupier'.
    Mr. Skeffington: Clause 33(9) empowers the Minister to direct that a building formerly subject to a building preservation order and for that reason deemed to be a listed building shall no longer be deemed to be listed.

    747
    In Committee the Opposition moved an Amendment which would require the Minister, before making such a direction, to consult with the local planning authority, the owner and the occupier. I gave an undertaking that this should be considered. The Amendment fulfils that pledge.
    Mr. Allason: There is little difference between this Amendment and our alternative. We would provide that the Minister may direct after consultation, while the Government have it that, before giving a direction, he shall consult. Our main objection is that the Government Amendment gives a second subsection (8), and also refers to a direction under subsection (7), when I think that subsection (9) is intended, since no direction is possible under (7). Amendment 77 is therefore defective, and Amendment 76 is to be preferred.
    Mr. Skeffington: I should have said that the figures in the first line of the Government Amendment have been wrongly printed, and that (8) should be (10) and (7) should be (9). This has been mentioned, but I should like to put it formally on the record.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Amendment is proposed as on the Order Paper, with the exception that, in the first line "(8)" should read "(10)" and "(7)" should read "(9)".
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 34
    PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 33
    Amendments made: No. 78, in page 29, line 12, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 79, in page 29, line 20, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'. —[Mr. Skeffington.]
    Amendment proposed: No. 80, in page 29, line 34 at end insert—
    (c) the reconstruction of the building or any part of it following the execution of any works with the use of original materials so far as practicable and with such alterations of the interior of the building as may be specified in the conditions.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not know whether I should rise to a point of order, since I had hoped for some elucidation
    748
    of this Amendment. But if the explanation is satisfactory, I shall not be able to speak again, and I can only hope that one of my hon. Friends will take up the point—
    Mr. Murton: I will.
    Mr. Cooke: My hon. Friend, luckily, says that he will do so.
    The object of the Amendment is that original materials shall be used in the alteration or extension of a building. This is a worthy object: if a building is to be damaged by alteration, it is clearly preferable that as little damage as possible should be done.
    However, taking this new subsection (c) with (a) and (b), we can see that a little more explanation is required. Subsection (a) refers to
    "the preservation of particular features of the building, either as part of it or after severance therefrom;"
    Do the Government take that to mean that, if the alteration or extension is authorised and involves the severance therefrom of particular features, this part of the Clause would seek to preserve those severed features, or would it also protect parts of a building which were dismantled long ago but are still lying on the site? I cannot see how such features can be protected unless they are covered by this subsection.
    Part of a great complex of buildings might have been demolished or have fallen down a century before and be lying on the site—carved stonework for instance. One recalls the fireplace at Tattershall Castle, which Lord Curzon helped to preserve.
    3.0 a.m.
    At my own home, I have had great difficulty in preserving parts of the building which were demolished a century ago. Some person thought he had a right over them and so wanted to cart away stones from the site. Ten years ago I tried to enlist the support of the Ministry in this, and it said that there was nothing in law that could be done, and I had to do a deal with the man to stop him from taking the stones away from the site.
    I hope that Clause 34(l)(a) and (b), and now (c), will result in the proper protection for parts of buildings which are dismantled as a result of the authorisation contained in the Clause or were dismantled years ago. I hope I am right in

    749
    thinking that there is some protection here. If there is not, perhaps the Government would give an undertaking to look at this in another place, because this is a very important matter.
    Mr. Skeffington: Perhaps I may explain the circumstances of this Amendment. In Standing Committee there was a proposition which would have ruled out the service of a listed building purchase notice where listed building consent is granted subject to a condition that the building should be rebuilt in its existing form. This seemed to be an interesting possibility of retaining, at any rate in outline, a desirable feature of a complex of buildings, and I undertook to consider the proposal. On reflection, we thought it would not be appropriate to exclude the service of a purchase notice in every case where replica rebuilding is permitted, since in some circumstances there might be no reasonably beneficial use even for a replica.
    It is desirable, however, that, in granting either listed building consent or planning permission, the planning authority should be able to impose a condition requiring replica rebuilding. Therefore, the Amendment adds this type of condition to the list, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, in Clause 34(4) of the conditions which may be imposed on grants of planning permission, and by Clause 34(5) on grants of listed building consent. Appeals may be made against the imposition of this type of condition, as against any other.
    Whether this would cover the case of remnants of previous activities I would like to consider further, and I will get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I am grateful for the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman has given, but would he explain to the House whether it is possible under this procedure for a condition to be that parts of the building, which may be of historic interest, and which could be reinstated, should be used for re-erection on the same site? Or has it to be on some other site? Suppose a fine doorway. Can it be carted away and put up somewhere else?
    Mr. Skeffington: That is so. This, of course, refers to the applicability to the site.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 81, in page 29, line 35, leave out 'Section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 82, in line 39, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 83, in line 43, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 35.
    PURCHASE NOTICE ON REFUSAL OR CONDITIONAL GRANT OF SECTION 33 CONSENT.
    Amendments made: No. 84, in page 30, line 2, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 85, in line 14, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 86, line 23, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 87, in line 25, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 88, in line 40, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 30, line 41, at the end to insert:
    'other than works for which the local planning authority or the Minister have undertaken to grant such consent'.
    This fulfils an undertaking which was given in Committee to correct an apparent anomaly in the drafting of Clause 35. A case might arise, on consideration of a listed building purchase notice, where the local planning authority or the Ministers had not given listed building consent but had undertaken to give it. By Clause 35(l)(c) that undertaking could be taken into account by the Minister when he considered whether the land could be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use, but by the last two lines of Clause 35(4) the works concerned might have to be disregarded. The Amendment makes sure, as I undertook to do, that subsection (l)(c) is right, by excluding, from the works which are to be disregarded, any works in respect of which an undertaking to grant consent has been given.
    Mr. Allason: I am not sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether we are allowed to discuss the Opposition Amendment to the Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that there is no objection to that Amendment being discussed.
    Mr. Allason: It would add at the end of line 2:
    'where the application has been made by the owner'.
    As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we are discussing the situation where a listed building consent has been refused and where a listed building is useless to the owner without that consent. Perhaps he makes a claim and the local authority resists the purchase notice and it cannot then be claimed by the local authority that other works, such as a new development or a change requiring a listed building consent, can make the building viable. The reason is obvious; that the owner should not be compelled to carry out other works which he does not desire to do.
    The Government Amendment makes an exception to this, in that the local planning authority can avoid a purchase notice by claiming as an exception that the building could be made viable by works where consent has been given on an undertaking. If the owner has applied or intends to apply for this consent to save his ownership, that is fine. But we must remember that the application for planning consent is not confined to the owner. Any other person can apply for consent. It would, theoretically, be possible, although the owner does not wish to apply for listed building consent to substantially change his building, possibly to another use, for someone else to apply and for the Minister to undertake to grant that consent, so depriving the owner of his right to compensation. I am sure that this is not the Government's intention and the position would be made clear if the Amendment to the Amendment were accepted.
    Mr. Skeffington: The Amendment to the Amendment would restrict the right of the Minister to direct the grant of listed building consent when considering a listed building purchase notice by making the grant subject to the agreement of the owner. This is not acceptable to the Government. As we explained when this matter was under discussion in Committee, if a local authority is to be com-
    752
    pelled to take over what may, in certain circumstances, be regarded as a white elephant, so to speak, it is proper that, if the authority feels that there is some reasonable beneficial use for part of the property, there should be no reason why the Minister should not be entitled either to grant the necessary consent or make conditions which would make that possible.
    If the relevant land is capable of reasonable beneficial use by the granting of consent, it should be open to the Minister and the local planning authority to grant such consent without the agreement of the owner. In any event, it should not make any difference to the owner since, if the undertaking is given to him or to a third party, he, the owner, can still have the benefit of it. Thus, it would be wrong to say that this must be done only with the agreement of the owner. There must be some rights for the local authority in this matter, even if one considers the obligations which the authority is taking over.
    Mr. Graham Page: We are talking about the circumstances in which an owner has been refused consent. Take the example in which the owner has a small Elizabethan cottage to which he wants to make alterations. He applies for a listed building consent and it is given, but the cottage is falling down and he serves a purchase notice. Then the Minister says, "You could build a Buckingham Palace on this site. We will give the permission." The owner may not be able to afford to make the alterations which the permission grants. It must be a permission with the owner's consent. Otherwise the Minister could give an outrageous permission and defeat the purchase notice because the owner might not have the means to carry out the permission given by the Minister. It is a ridiculous position if that is so. I may have misunderstood, but this is apparently what the Parliamentary Secretary said.
    Mr. Allason: This—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment.
    Mr. Allason: Do we move the Amendment to the Amendment?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Amendment to the Amendment has not been selected to be moved.

    Clause 36.
    COMPENSATION FOR REFUSAL OF CONSENT TO ALTERATIONS ETC.
    Amendments made: No. 90, in page 31, line 2, leave out 'section 33' and insert ' listed building'.
    No. 91, in page 31, line 14, leave out 'section 33 ' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 92, in page 31, line 25, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
    Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
    The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 31.

    Division No. 161.]

    AYES

    [3.14 a.m.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Murray, Albert

    Archer, Peter

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Newens, Stan

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Forrester, John

    Ogden, Eric

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Freeson, Reginald

    O'Malley, Brian

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Orbach, Maurice

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Orme, Stanley

    Beaney, Alan

    Gregory, Arnold

    Oswald, Thomas

    Bence, Cyril

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Hamling, William

    Palmer, Arthur

    Blackburn, F.

    Hannan, William

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Harper, Joseph

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Booth, Albert

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Haseldine, Norman

    Pentland, Norman

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hazell, Bert

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Homer, John

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Brown,Bob(Nc'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

    Hoy, James

    Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow.E.)

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Rose, Paul

    Buchan, Norman

    Hunter, Adam

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Chapman, Donald

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Coe, Denis

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Coleman, Donald

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Datyell, Tam

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Slater, Joseph

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Small, William

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dempsey, James

    McBride, Neil

    Taverne, Dick

    Dewar, Donald

    MacColl, James

    Tinrt, James

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    MacDermot, Niall

    Urwin, T. W.

    Dickens, James

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Varloy, Eric G.

    Doig, Peter

    McGuire, Michael

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Wallace, George

    Eadie, Alex

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Whitaker, Ben

    Ellis, John

    Marquand, David

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)

    English, Michael

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Ennals, David

    Millan, Bruce

    Woof, Robert

    Evans, Iroan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Mr. J. D. Concannon and

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Moyle, Roland

    Mr. Charles Grey.

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Hordern, Peter

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whit by")

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Silvester, Frederick

    Clegg, Walter

    Lubbock, Eric

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Cooke, Robert

    MacArthur, Ian

    Temple, John M.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Murton, Oscar

    Eden, Sir John

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Peyton, John

    Mr.Reginald Eyre and

    Goodhew, Victor

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

    Grant, Anthony

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 94, with which we may discuss Amendment No. 93, in page 31, line 32, leave out 'is' and insert 'has been'.
    No. 95, in page 31, line 33, at end insert:
    'except when action has been taken upon that purchase notice of such a nature that compensation is not payable under the aforementioned sections'.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 31, line 33, at end insert:
    'being a purchase notice which takes effect'.
    It was pointed out in Committee that the Clause is defective. The intention of subsection (4) is to exclude compensation under the Clause, for the refusal of consent to alterations, when compensation is also payable as a result of a purchase notice. However, as drafted, the subsection would exclude compensation under the Clause whenever a purchase notice is served, regardless of whether or not it takes effect. The Amendment restricts the operation of the subsection to the case originally intended.
    Mr. Graham Page: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Amendment, and gratified that we can assist in making the Bill intelligible.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 37
    NOTICE TO ENFORCE S. 33 CONTROL
    Amendments made: No. 96, in page 32, line 4, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 97, in page 32, line 6, at end insert:
    (2) A notice under this section is hereafter in this Act referred to as a 'listed building enforcement notice'.
    No. 98, in page 32, line 8, leave out 'notices under this section' and insert 'listed building enforcement notices'.— [Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 38
    PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE UNDER S. 37
    Amendments made: No. 99, in page 32, line 11, leave out 'notice under section 37 above' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.
    No. 100, in page 33, line 2, leave out 'notice under section 37 above' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 39
    EXECUTION AND COST OF WORKS REQUIRED UNDER ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE
    Amendments made: No. 101, in page 33, line 7, leave out from beginning to 'any' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.
    No. 102, in page 33, line 13, leave out from 'a' to 'and' in line 14 and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.
    No. 103, in page 33, line 23, leave out from 'a' to 'as' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 40
    ENFORCEMENT BY, OR BY DIRECTION OF, THE MINISTER
    Amendments made: No. 104, in page 33, line 29, leave out from 'a' to 'should' in line 30 and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.
    No. 105, in page 33, line 35 leave out from 'a' to 'served' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 42
    COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SERVICE OF BUILDING PRESERVATION NOTICE.
    Amendments made: No. 106, in page 35, line 13, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 107, in page 35, line 25, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'. —[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 44
    REPAIRS NOTICE AS PRELIMINARY TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION.
    Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment 108, in page 37, line 29, at end insert:
    (5) A person on whom a repairs notice is served, or any other person having an interest in the land, may within twenty-eight days from the service of the notice appeal to the Minister against the notice on any of the following grounds—

    (a) that the building was not of special or historic interest; or

    757

    (b) that the works are unsuitable or un necessary to the character of the building; or

    (c) that the works required are the responsibility of some other person; or

    (d)that the cost of the works is disproportionate to the value of the building; or

    (e) that the cost of the works is more than the person served with the notice can reasonably afford.

    (6) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Minister which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal; and on any such appeal the Minister shall give the appellant and the local planning authority an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for that purpose.
    (7) On the determination of an appeal under this section the Minister may quash the repairs notice or confirm it.
    The Amendment attempts to provide for an appeal against a repairs notice. Under the Bill a repairs notice is described as a preliminary to a compulsory purchase order, but it is definitely preliminary. Where a local planning authority considers that a listed building is in bad repair it can serve a repairs notice on the owner requiring him to carry out the necessary repairs or they will issue a compulsory purchase order.
    I think that the Government are assuming that every repairs notice will be resisted, that there will not be any attempt to comply with it, and that it is just a pure preliminary. The way they behaved on the last Amendment is indicative that the Government do not understand about listed buildings and buildings of historic interest. People are very fond of them and want to preserve them. They may be rather ruinous.
    I have a little cottage in my constituency which was the bakehouse of the village. Under the last Amendment, I might be forced to turn it back to a bakehouse. But if I were served with a repairs notice saying that the bakehouse was in poor condition—it is several hundred years old—I would have the choice of complying with the notice or seeking to object to it on the ground that it was unnecessary to keep the bakehouse in good condition when the rest of the cottage was in perfectly good order and presented a good appearance.
    But there is to be no appeal at that stage. The only opportunity for appeal arises when we get to the stage of a compulsory purchase order. I do not see why the owner should be put to the
    758
    mental distress of going as far as a compulsory purchase order and then having to resist it to obtain an appeal against the repairs notice. In most cases, the owner, on receiving a repairs notice, will say, "Can I afford to do this job?" and probably getting estimates, finding that the job would be very expensive and then deciding whether the job is really necessary. At this stage, there should be an appeals procedure to see whether the repairs notice is reasonable.
    I know that the Minister does not want more and more appeals. Nevertheless, we want justice for the individual. Individuals' rights are constantly being overridden by this Government. This is a chance to give an opportunity for an appeal procedure at the right time and not to have to wait until a further step has been taken which most owners would wish to avoid.
    Mr. MacDermot: As was explained in Committee, the repairs notice procedure is nothing more than what I described as a warning shot across the bows. If the owner of a listed building allows it to fall into disrepair in a way which threatens its continued existence, one of the remedies for the local authority is to acquire the building. We thought it right that, before it was able to launch compulsory purchase proceedings, it should give fair warning by specifying what it considered were the repairs which should be done and giving that notice to the owner. That is all it is, and nothing more.
    We do not want an elaboration of appeals systems upon appeals systems. If and when the owner ignores that warning notice and the local authority proceeds to compulsory purchase, there are written into that stage all the rights of appeal which can be requested. He can appeal against the listing. He can appeal on the ground that the repairs he is being asked to do are unnecessary and excessive. But it would overload the whole system to have a separate system of appeals merely against this warning notice. Long before one reached this formal warning notice, one would have had discussions between the local authority and the owner, and one would get to this stage only if the person adamantly refused to repair. Some people refuse to repair in the hope that the building will fall to pieces and thus

    759
    they will be able to pull it down and get the real development value of the building.
    I agreed to look at one point raised in Committee, namely, the suggestion that there might be difficulty in a case in which the person with the repairing liability as between owner and tenant was the tenant. I see no point in looking at it; it is not being pressed. The repairs notice is a preliminary to acquisition, and, since it is the owner who suffers if the building is acquired, he is the one who should receive the warning. The relationship between the owner and the tenant is a legal matter. The owner can protect himself, and in an ordinary tenancy agreement he does so. It is up to him to retain sufficient control by a normal tenancy agreement to enable him to safeguard his rights.
    3.30 a.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: This is inconsiderate to the owner of the property. Here is a person who owns a listed property. The local authority thinks that it is in disrepair; the owner may not think it is in disrepair, and there may be a dispute about it. Normally when a local authority serves a person with a sanitary notice or a dangerous structure notice he has the right to defend himself against it. That is merely defending oneself before the magistrates. Here there is no appeal against the first notice. It is followed by what we call a compulsory purchase order, which is an order to take a person's property away from him. This can be justified in the Bill merely by serving a notice on the person that the listed building is in disrepair.
    This is very inconsiderate and may cause grievous hardship. Many of us in our constituencies have seen terror strike into the hearts of owners when they have received compulsory purchase orders. We call them that because we are dealing with them every day, and they are not compulsory purchase orders on our own homes, but when a constituent comes to us with a compulsory purchase order on his home, we know how terrified he is.
    Surely we do not have to go to that procedure immediately from a repairs notice. A form of appeal from the repairs notice could relieve the. owner of that sort of terror.
    Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman consider that, instead of appealing to the Minister and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite implied, over-burdening the machinery, it might be a suitable case for appeal under Clause 19 of the Bill where, instead of the appeal going to the Minister direct, it goes to a person appointed by the Minister for that purpose?
    Mr. Graham Page: That is a very sound suggestion. All I want to do is to put something in between the service of the notice and the service of the compulsory purchase order, so that there can be arbitration between the parties on the repairs notice.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 45.
    COMPENSATION ON COMPULSORY ACQUISITION.
    Amendments made: No. 109, in page 37, line 43, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
    No. 110, in page 38, line 37, leave out ' section 33 ' and insert ' listed building '. —[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 47.
    APPLICATION OF CONTROL TO LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES.
    Amendment made: No. Ill, in page 39, line 29, leave out ' section 33 ' and insert ' listed building '.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 51
    REFERENCES TO A PLANNING INQUIRY COMMISSION
    Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 42, line 3, at end insert:
    'but the Commission shall not in any case be debarred from considering any alternative site'.
    The Amendment concerns the Planning Inquiry Commission carrying out an inquiry into a proposed development. It is clear from the wording of the Clause that the Minister may refer to the Commission the question of an alternative site, but the fact that the Minister may cause them to look into the question of an alternative site brings into doubt whether they have the right to do it themselves.

    761
    We were told in Committee that this was the intention, but it is difficult to read it into the present wording, and it would be better if it were made quite clear. The planning inquiries commissions will be watched with great interest by laymen, who will study their terms of reference and want to know what are their rights and restrictions. The Amendment would have the effect of clearing people's minds of doubt.
    Mr. MacDermot: In its strict wording and narrow sense, the Amendment is unnecessary. In any event, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would not achieve what he intends, and I would oppose one which did.
    A Planning Inquiry Commission will operate in two stages. In the first stage, it will itself carry out an investigation into the issues referred to it and what appear to it to be the relevant issues. That is provided for in subsection (6)(a). It will also hear objections, and that will usually be in the form of a local inquiry, under subsection (6)(b).
    Inevitably, where an applicant bases his case in whole or in part on the suitability of a given site and says either that no other site is suitable or that any other site would, for example, be far more expensive, objectors are likely to suggest alternative sites. Once such an issue is raised, the Commission is bound to consider it. If it refrains from dealing with it in its report, there will be possible grounds for quashing the decision because the relevant issues have not been considered. In conducting its proceedings, the Commission will have a general power to consider any alternative sites suggested in those proceedings.
    At the other end is the case where, at the time the Minister refers the matter to the Planning Inquiry Commission, he says that he wants it to investigate the possibility of alternative sites. When so charged, it will be for the Commission to investigate whether other sites are equally or more suitable. But we do not think that it is right that the Commission should go beyond what it is charged with doing, namely, considering the suitability of the subject of the application, and of its own initiative investigating alternative sites if that has not been referred to it by the Minister and raised as an issue in the proceedings.
    762
    When the possibility of alternative sites is included in the reference by the Minister, the Commission must investigate that. If any issue of alternative sites is raised in the proceedings, it has to consider that and, as part of its consideration, may initiate further investigations of its own. But it is not for the Commission itself to go searching round trying to consider whether other sites for which no application has been made would be equally or more suitable.
    Against that background, the Amendment is unnecessary. The Commission would not be debarred from considering an alternative site by the nature of the work that it has to do, and there would be no need to write in wording of the kind suggested.
    Consideration of this Amendment has made me look again at subsection (6), and I think it probably would be helpful if at a later stage of the proceedings on the Bill we were to add after the word "identify" at the beginning of subsection (6)(a) the words "and investigate". This brings out more clearly the difference between the two parts of their work, firstly, where they themselves are investigating, and secondly, where they are considering objections. They would only consider alternative sites in the first part if required to do so by the Minister, and in the second part where the issue was raised.
    Mr. Allason: The Minister of State has taken exactly the same point I was about to take, which is the first stage of their considerations. I am not certain that the words "and investigate" would do the trick. Supposing they are set to investigate the possibility of the development of Luton Airport. In their first investigations they would refer to identifying and even investigating the desirability of expanding the airport. But at that stage it would not enter their minds, unless the Minister had directed them to consider that there was a need for very considerable expansion of air traffic in that area, that there was the possibility of going elsewhere.
    I think it would be very much better if they were free at the first stage, when they identify and investigate, to consider alternative sites rather than wait for the inquiry when somebody gets up and says "We do not want it here—why don't you

    763
    look at Silverstone?" There is then suddenly the possibility of an alternative site, and the alternative site may turn out to be not Silverstone but somewhere else.
    I think it is desirable to make absolutely clear that they can consider alternative sites. The Minister says they can, and I am sure it is better to write it into the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 42, line 29, at end insert:
    (7) Any such commission may, with theapproval of the Minister and at his expense, arrange for the carrying out (whether by the commission themselves or by others) of research of any kind appearing to them to be relevant to a matter referred to them for inquiry and report.
    In this subsection ' the Minister' in relation to any matter affecting both England and Wales, means the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State acting in either case, by arrangments between the two of them, on behalf of both.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to equip the Planning Inquiry Commission with power to arrange for the carrying out of research which is relevant to a matter which has been referred to them. It is intended, of course, that these Commissions should be able to investigate in depth matters which are relevant to a decision on planning grounds. This may involve novel technical or scientific considerations and matters which may extend beyond their own expertise.
    For the purpose of their investigations, therefore, these kinds of studies or researches may be necessary and they ought to have power to commission them. They will need the consent of the Minister to get approval for the cost involved, and also to make sure that there is no unnecessary duplication by outside private research work of what may already be available from research establishments within the Government.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 42, line 35, leave out subsection (8) and insert:
    (8) Schedule (Construction of references in sections 51 and 52 to 'the responsible Minister or Ministers') to this Act shall have effect for the construction of references in this section and section 52 below to ' the responsible Minister or Ministers'.
    764
    This Amendment replaces sub-section (8) of Clause 51 of the Bill by a new sub-section introducing this Schedule, and we hope that the table form of this Schedule will be easier for reference purposes to people who have to use it than trying to plough their way through some rather lengthy provisions as in the Bill. There is only one change of substance— one novel matter—in the new Schedule. This is the entries at l(a) in the Table relating to the position of operational land of statutory undertakers.
    3.45 a.m.
    Mr. Allason: I warmly welcome the tabulation. It makes the matter much clearer. But it could have been even clearer. The fourth column is redundant because it only adds up columns 2 and 3. Column 2 is headed "Affecting England" and column 3 is headed "Affecting Wales". Where a matter affects England and Wales all one needs to do is add up columns 2 and 3 to get the answer.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 52.
    PROCEDURE ON A REFERENCE TO A PLANNING INQUIRY COMMISSION.
    Amendment made: No. 115, in page 43, line 22, leave out 'take place' and insert ' be carried out'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, Amendment No. 116, in page 43, line 35, to leave out subsection (3) and to insert—
    (3) A Planning Inquiry Commission shall, for the purpose of complying with section 51(6)(b) above, hold a local inquiry and they may hold such an inquiry, if they think it necessary for the proper discharge of their functions, notwithstanding that neither the applicant nor the local planning authority desire an opportunity of appearing and being heard.
    This Amendment discharges two undertakings given in Committee— firstly, to make it clear that any inquiry held by a planning inquiry commission under Clause 5l(6)(b) should be a local inquiry and not a hearing; and, secondly, to empower the commission to hold a local inquiry even when none of the statutory parties entitled to demand that one do so.
    Mr. Allason: I have two questions which arise from the drafting. First, must a local inquiry be held by a member of a planning inquiry commission? Secondly, can the local inquiry only be held within the restrictions of Clause 51(6)(b), which is limited if, as stated here, neither the applicant nor the local planning authority desire to appear to some person having made representations? Is it the case that another person cannot bo heard in cases where a Government Department proposes to make a direction for development by a local authority or statutory undertaker or, alternatively, where it proposes itself to develop?
    It would seem that, if these cases are excluded from the local inquiry in cases where neither the applicant nor the local planning authority desire an appeal, there is an unnecessary restriction here, because it may well be that, in the circumstances of the two latter cases, some outside body would have good reason for asking for an inquiry. It would appear from the wording that it would not be entitled to get it.
    Mr. MacDermot: The answer to the first question is, "Yes". The inquiry will be heard by a member of a commission.
    The hon. Gentleman's second question was a little complicated, and I am not sure if I got it absolutely clear. Perhaps I can answer in this way: There will only be a right to demand an inquiry in cases in which at the moment, there would be a right to a local inquiry if the planning application or appeal had not been referred to a planning inquiry commission.
    There will be the same right to inquiry but no more. As a result of the Amendment there will be the additional power of making representations before a third party, to make representations to the Planning Inquiry Commission, which would have the power, on its own initiative, to hold an inquiry, even though none of the people statutorily entitled to demand one had done so.
    Mr. Allason: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not quite taken my point. Under Clause 51(6)(b) it is confined to the cases in Clause 5l(1)(a)(b), while (c) and (d) are expressly excluded by the
    766
    terms of subsection (6)(b). In those circumstances it would appear that the third party is excluded.
    Mr. MacDermot: The third party is excluded, even if the matter is not referred to the Planning Inquiry Commission. The right to demand an inquiry is co-extensive with the present right under existing planning law. What we are doing in the Amendment is vesting power in the Commission to hold an inquiry. This opens a door to third parties, or there is a possibility of the door being opened for them by the Commission.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 117, in page 43, line 40 leave out' if it had been ' and insert ' one '.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 53.
    DELEGATION OF PLANNING FUNCTIONS TO OFFICERS OF LOCAL UTHORITIES.
    Mr. Murton: I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 44, line 11, after ' authority ', insert:
    '(who is to their satisfaction competent to undertake the responsibility of examining, investigating and making decisions upon applications for planning permissions and related applications)'.
    As the Bill is drafted, a local planning authority may delegate any of its officers, with or without restrictions or conditions. We consider that the words "any officer" are too wide in scope. A situation might arise when a chief planning officer in an overburdened office might delegate functions to a junior in times of crisis. Generally speaking, the matters dealt with in Clause 53 would be fairly minor. Subsection (f) however deals with:
    "an application for consent under section 33 of this Act for the execution of works for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension."
    Such work requires skill and expertise, and for that reason we suggest that the Amendment is accepted, so that a local authority must be satisfied beyond per-adventure of the competence and qualifications of the officer it is choosing to carry out any function.
    Mr. MacDermot: This Amendment is unnecessary. The hon. Member suggested that there was a danger of a chief planning officer, to whom powers of delegation had been given, deciding to delegate to a junior officer. He would have no power to do so. It is only the authority which can exercise the powers of delegation. In the phrase known to lawyers:
    "Delegatus non potest delegare."
    The officer would have no power to re-delegate to someone else.
    Mr. Murton: Can we dispose of that and say that the authority did the delegating? How are we placed then?
    Mr. MacDermot: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he thinks that a local planning authority, given power under this Bill to delegate, and having to decide to whom it will delegate, will not consider the kind of matters in his Amendment? I would have thought it was almost an insult to the authority to suggest that they did not realise that of course they must delegate to someone competent to undertake the powers of delegation. But perhaps I can indicate that when we come to Amendment 120, which was on a point we were asked in Committee to consider, that delegation should be to officers by name, I shall be disposed to recommend the House to accept it.
    If this is done and local authorities have therefore to decide by name on the particular people to whom they are going to delegate, they will exercise that power responsibly and it is not necessary to write this into the Bill. If we wanted to do this, the drafting would not be very suitable.
    Mr. Graham Page: The point about this Amendment, which I think the Minister of State has missed, is that it concerns the capability of the officer appointed to undertake the responsibility of making decisions of this type. He will have, to some extent, to carry out an investigation of plans and reach a decision. There may be fully qualified planning officers, architects or surveyors in a department who are not the right people to carry out this sort of investigation of a plan, perhaps beyond the submission of an application, and to be satisfied that the application is right for the district.
    768
    The Amendment is intended to stress that and not just professional qualifications. It may be that the Minister has it in mind to advise local authorities on these lines, perhaps by the well-worn method of a circular. If he intends to give guidance of this kind, I hope he will bear this sort of consideration in mind.
    Mr. MacDermot: We will bear that in mind and consider it carefully. I took the sense of the Amendment although I think it is not a matter we think should be written into the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Murton: I beg to move Amendment No. 119, in page 44, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
    (3) The delegation of the function aforesaid to an officer shall be made to him by name.
    with which it would be convenient to take Amendment 120, in page 44, line 38, leave out from ' section' to end of line 40 and insert:
    ' shall be made to him by name'.
    Mr. MacDermot: There seem to be two Amendments dealing with the matter. It appears to us that the wording of the second is rather to be preferred.
    Mr. Murton: If I could just speak to Amendment 120, the Minister of State said on the previous Amendment that he would be disposed to accept this. We had considerable discussion in Committee and we are anxious that anybody appointed should be named rather than being described by function. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 120, in page 44, line 38, leave out from ' section' to end of line 40 and insert:
    'shall be made to him by name'.—[Mr. Murton.]

    Clause 54.
    LIMIT OF DURATION OF PLANNING PERMISSIONS PAST AND FUTURE.
    Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment 124, in page 45, line 32, leave out ' five' and insert 'ten'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 125, in page 45, line 38, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.
    Amendment No. 128, in page 46, line 31, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'.
    Amendment No. 129, in page 46, line 36, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.
    Amendment No. 130, in page 46, line 38, leave out 'three ' and insert 'five'.
    Amendment No. 131, in page 47, line 5, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'.
    Amendment No. 132, in page 47, line 10, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.
    Amendment No. 133, in page 47, line 12, leave out 'three' and insert 'five'.
    4.0 a.m.
    Mr. Rossi: Clauses 54 and 55 place arbitrary time limits on the lives of various planning permissions. The object of this group of Amendments is to extend those time limits.
    Under Clause 54 a time limit of five years is put on all existing planning permissions where development has not been started before the publication of the Bill on 20th December, 1967. The same time limit of five years is being put on all future planning permissions, except that local authorities can vary it. The Amendments seek to extend the period of five years to ten years in all cases.
    Linked with these proposals are the time limits contained in Clause 55 relating to outline planning permissions. For existing outline planning permission, where a development has not been started before 20th December, 1967, any detailed approval which is required must be sought within two years of the Clause coming into force, and the development must begin either within five years of the Clause coming into force or within three years of detailed approval being finally given to the matters for which permission has been sought. We seek to extend these periods to five years.
    During the debate in Standing Committee the Minister gave two reasons why he felt it necessary that a time limit should be placed on the lives of planning permissions. The first reason was administrative convenience. It was found that, with local planning authorities, unused planning permissions were cluttering up the files, and it was desirable that these should be brought to an end if they were not to be used.
    770
    The second, and perhaps the far more important, reason was that he felt that land might be hoarded by speculators. He felt that by putting time limits on their planning permissions they would be compelled either to carry out their development or sell off the land.
    Because we recognise that there is merit in the administrative convenience point, we consider that time limits should remain, but that they should be considerably extended. This is what we seek to do in this group of Amendments.

    We do not accept the validity of the Minister's contention in Standing Committee that builders and developers are hoarding land. The experience of the Land Commission, which has been raking round the country trying to find hoarded land, is that it does not exist. This has been a matter of public statement. It has also been a great disappointment to the Land Commission that one of the bases upon which it was created was found to be completely false. Hoarding has not been taking place. It is true that builders have been compiling stocks of land, in the sense that they have to collect together parcels to develop them as a unified whole; but this is something that the Land Commission itself would expect to do.
    I seems quite wrong that, by forcing arbitrary time limits of this kind— relatively short time limits—a builder or developer should be required to carry out his development out of time scale. This could easily ruin a comprehensive development of land in any particular case, and hardship could arise. The builder often buys land with an existing planning permission, whether detailed or outline. Under the Government's proposals, it is possible, for reasons beyond his control, that he might find, after having bought that land, that there were difficulties of access or delays in providing services like sewerage and that the time limit had run out. He would then be left with land for which he had paid a price reflecting the betterment levy but which no longer had that value.
    It would clearly be unfair to cancel the planning permission when that price had been paid and the Land Commission had collected its 40 per cent. If the builder sold his land, he would do so at a considerable loss, whereas the Land

    771
    Commission would have got the betterment levy once and possibly twice if someone else applied for a fresh planning permission for a different type of development.
    If the Minister's object is to prevent the hoarding of land, the Land Commission is his avowed instrument, charged to seek out land which is being hoarded. I remember great speeches by the Parliamentary Secretary on this subject in debates on the Land Commission Bill—
    Mr. MacDermot: Does the hon. Gentleman want to keep it?
    Mr. Rossi: No, this is a Government programme, not mine. I am simply asking why, having one instrument which was to do these wonderful things, they now produce another which will create many difficulties for people trying to carry out proper and necessary developments.
    Mr. MacDermot: The Amendments propose merely to increase the standard time limits in Clauses 54 and 55, which I described in Committee as a "norm" for planning authorities, a guide to the normal period, but there is complete flexibility, and in any case it will be open to them to grant either a longer or a shorter period. That applies not only to the standard limit for a full planning permission but also to the period between grant of outline permission and the submission of the application for full permission.
    The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) suggested that our case for this limit was based on administrative convenience. Nothing of the sort. These unused planning permissions are clogging up the planning machine, in the sense that planning authorities are not able to deal as they should with new planning applications because they do not know how many of the old planning permissions are real, subsisting permissions which are ever likely to be exercised, and how many of them were obtained for other purposes to increase land values at the time of the sale. Instances were given of this in Committee. I think it is a problem which particularly applies in coastal areas and in certain other areas of high amenity value.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is not one of the consequences of the shortness of this period going to be that people who have not been able to build in five years will immediately apply for planning permission again for another five years and so increase the number of applications with which the local authorities have to deal?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman assumes they. will get planning permission again. They may or they may not, and it depends.
    This leads me to the point which the hon. Gentleman was making about the builders. We are, of course, well aware that some builders require at times to stock land for many years ahead. We quite accepted that, and made it perfectly plain that this is the sort of case where we perceive that it will be reasonable for a planning authority to grant a longer period of planning permission, but I do not accept the suggestion that there is no evidence of any land hoarding.
    Of course, it all depends on what we mean by "hoarding". I think it is clear that there is not a lot of land with planning permission for development other than in small plots where the owners are not prepared to release that land to builders, but I think there is a considerable amount of land in the hands of builders, both large and small, some of whom have stocks of land far beyond anything which will be needed for just the next, say, five or six years. It does not follow that when land is in the hands of a builder it will necessarily be brought forward for development at the time which is the right time from a planning point of view, and this, again, is one of the reasons why it is wise for planning authorities to impose proper time limits for planning permission. Many have adopted this practice for some considerable time past. What is new now is the universality of this practice.
    We accept that there may be arguments for particular cases, be they by builders or be they by private individuals. There may equally be a case where a limit is properly imposed for a certain number of years, but then new circumstances intervene which make it not possible to develop in that time. If

    773
    they require a renewal of planning permission and it is obvious that they intend to develop, then that is the kind of circumstance in which they would get fresh planning permission. This does not indefinitely affect their position.
    They are not going to pay a fresh development levy on renewal of planning permission.
    I found the argument based on the powers of purchase of the Land Commission splendid coming from hon. Members opposite when they keep trying to threaten everybody with their intention to abolish the Land Commission even when they may never be in a position to do so. I am quite certain that if the time comes—many years ahead—when they do get into office again, they will find the functions and the usefulness of the Land Commission will have proved themselves to the builders, and will have proved themselves to the planning authorities, above all in this role of seeing that land is brought forward for development at the time and in a way which will be of benefit to the planning authorities and the builders.
    4.15 a.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: In another place and at another time I shall be delighted to debate: the Land Commission with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps our chance will come on a later Amendment at an even later hour. Meanwhile, we are dealing with the important subject of the limitation of the duration of planning permissions.
    The first difficulty is that the Bill imposes an automatic duration; a statutory condition which applies to a planning permission if the local authority does nothing to remove that condition. This means that if the local authority makes no alteration in the five years, there will be no appeal by the applicant to the Minister to ask for that five years to be varied. I understand that only if the local planning authority imposes some other period than the five years will the applicant be entitled to approach the Minister in this matter.
    There may be many cases where the five-year period, or any statutory time, is wrong, yet the applicant will have to abide by the local authority's decision, without appeal. One should, therefore,
    774
    give the longest reasonable period, and we have doubled the five years to 10 in the Amendment, which should normally cover the position.
    The second difficulty is the question of bringing stocks of land forward. By limiting planning permission, will this really bring land forward for development? After all, it is only relieving the local planning authority from paying compensation for revoking planning permission. It will be getting that permission statuiorily revoked instead of itself revoking it and paying compensation for so doing. I cannot see the effect that this will have on bringing stocks of land forward.
    Suppose a developer is forced to start his building just as the five years is coming to an end. Do we really want partially completed buildings? If not, local planning authorities will be put to the task of serving completion notices all over the place. Not only will they have the burden of extra planning applications, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has pointed out, but they will also have the job of serving thousands of completion notices, since people will start building in an effort to avoid losing their planning permission.
    Mr. MacDermot: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. He suggested that there would be a right of appeal only against a time-limiting condition, if that was something other than the standard period. That is not correct. This condition, like any other condition, can be the subject of an appeal.
    Mr. Page: I am pleased to learn that, but why not write it into the Bill? I am not the only one who has interpreted this in the way I described. Many people experienced in these matters have apparently misinterpreted this. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the wording of the provision to see whether it is necessary to make the position abundantly clear in the Bill.
    This is an important change in the law, a change which my hon. Friends do not find acceptable. We see no real reason for it and we believe it to be ill-conceived in thinking that it will either bring forward land for development or save any administration on the part of local planning authorities. Instead, they will be

    775
    overburdened with the renewal of applications, and where applications are not being renewed but work is being started, we will get the same sort of situation as we had when the Land Commission was coming into operation, with thousands of people digging silly little trenches all over the country merely to say that they have started developments and are proceeding with them. Now, if
    they do not proceed with them, I assume that the local authorities will have to serve completion notices. The whole system as conceived in these provisions is wrong and we cannot accept it.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
    The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 121.

    Division No. 162.]

    AYES

    [4.19 a.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hordern, Peter

    Silvester, Frederick

    Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Smith, John (London & W'minster)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Lubbock, Eric

    Temple, John M.

    Clegg, Walter

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Winstanley, Dr M. P.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Murton, Oscar

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Eden, Sir John

    Peyton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Pink, B. Bonner

    Mr. Reginald Eyre and

    Goodhew, Victor

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

    Grant, Anthony

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Moyle, Roland

    Archer, Peter

    Forrester, John

    Murray, Albert

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Freeson, Reginald

    Newens, Stan

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Ogden, Eric

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Gourlay, Harry

    O'Malley, Brian

    Beaney, Alan

    Gregory, Arnold

    Orbach, Maurice

    Bence, Cyril

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Orme, Stanley

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hamling, William

    Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hannan, William

    Palmer, Arthur

    Booth, Albert

    Harper, Joseph

    Parkyn, Brlan (Bedford)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Pavitt, Laurencee

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Haseldine, Norman

    Pentland, Norman

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Hazell, Bert

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

    Horner, John

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Hoy, James

    Rose, Paul

    Buchan, Norman

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Chapman, Donald

    Hunter, Adam

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Coe, Denis

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Coleman, Donald

    Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Dalyell, Tam

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Slater, Joseph

    Small, William

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Lee, John (Reading)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Taverne, Dick

    Dempsey, James

    Lewis, Ron (Carlise)

    Tinn, James

    Dewar, Donald

    McBride, Neil

    Urwin, T. W.

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    MacColl, James

    Varley, Eric G.

    Dickerrs,, James

    MacDermot, Niall

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Doig, Peter

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Dunnett, Jack

    McGuire Michael

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglon)

    Wallace, George

    Dunwoody, Dr, John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Wellbeloved, James

    Eadie, Alex

    MacPherson Malcoim

    Whitaker, Ben

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Mallalieu, e. L. (Brigg)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Ellis, John

    Marks, Kenneth

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    English, Michael

    Marquand, David

    Woof, Robert

    Ennals, David

    Mendeison, J. J.

    Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Millan, Bruce

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Mr. J. D. Concannon, and

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Mr. Alan Fitch.

    Clause 57.
    TERMINATION OF PLANNING PERMISSION BY REFERENCE TO TIME LIMIT.
    Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 135, in page 48, line 24, leave out from 'than' to end of line 25 and insert:
    'five years from the last date on which the development could be begun by virtue of such planning permission'.
    We are again concerned with arbitrary time limits which are being imposed by the Bill. We wish to extend those limits. The Clause empowers a local planning authority to
    "serve a notice … stating that the planning permission will cease to have effect"
    if a development which is in hand is not completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority within a period
    "not … earlier than twelve months from the date of the notice".
    Whether or not 12 months is a reasonable period depends on the size of the development. A very large development possibly could not be completed in 12 months. There are many developments going on up and down the country where it would be quite onerous on a developer to be required to finish within the 12-month period. It would be physically impossible for him to do so. With that period, far too strong an instrument is put in the hands of the local authority, and I hope that the Minister will give greater latitude in this matter.
    4.30 a.m.
    Mr. MacDermot: Whether intentionally or otherwise, the Amendment is in effect almost a wrecking Amendment; it would defeat the purpose of the completion notice. A system of time-limited planning would be ineffectual unless there was a completion notice procedure, because anyone could avoid the effect of the time-limiting by some token commencement of the works. That is why the completion notice procedure is necessary, to see that someone who starts the works can be compelled either to complete them or lose the benefit of the planning permission which effectively, in those circumstances he would have abandoned.
    One must see that the system works fairly and that he is given sufficient time in order reasonably in the circumstances to complete the work. The Bill provides
    778
    that the time he is to be given cannot be less than 12 months, but it can be more. If he can make out a reasonable case for having more than 12 months, he may be able to get it. He has the additional protection that a completion notice, including the question of the amount of time, must be confirmed by the Minister, and there is provision for the parties to have a hearing if they so desire. We feel that this adequately safeguards the position of the land owner, whoever he may be, while preventing a coach and horses being driven through the system of time-limited planning permissions. If we made the minimum period as long as five years there would be really no bite in the procedure.
    Mr. Graham Page: Immediately the Bill becomes law, as it stands, it would be possible for a local authority to serve a completion notice on a development which had been started under a planning permission—it might be a £4 million or £5 million development—to be completed within 12 months. This is a possibility. It is also a possibility that the local authority will leave five-year planning permissions, as they will be in the future, until the last moment, and then the owner of the land on which the planning permission is effective will start developing and be served with a completion notice to build within 12 months.
    Even if we were exaggerating in putting in the five-year period, it seems that the Bill needs some Amendment in this respect, and the matter should not be left to appeal to the Minister. The Minister told us that this is the safety valve, as it were. If the local authority is stupid over serving its completion notice and demands something unreasonable, that parties can go before the Minister. But it does not seem a very satisfactory procedure to draft the Bill in such a way that the local planning authority can take unwise and unreasonable steps and then say, "You can have it settled by the Minister." There is that danger in the Clause as drafted.
    Mr. MacDermot: A completion notice cannot be served in respect of development which has already been begun before the Bill comes into force or which

    779
    is begun just after it comes into force. The completion notice procedure is related to a planning permission which, by virtue of Sections 54 and 55, is granted or is deemed to be granted subject to these conditions, which would include the Section 54 limitation or existing unlimited planning permissions which would normally, therefore, be five years from the passing of the Bill. It would apply to any new planning permissions subject to the five years or such other time limit as was imposed. The earliest a completion notice could be served after the passing of the Bill would be when permission was granted after the passing of the Bill for a lesser period than five years, say, three years. If work was started within that three years but not proceeded with, a completion notice could be served. The first completion notice would inevitably be many years ahead. If in a very large development such as the hon. Gentleman suggested the completion notice allowed only 12 months and that was an unreasonable period, it would not be confirmed by the Minister.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 58.
    NEW PROVISION AS TO WHAT IS "OPERATIONAL LAND" OF STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 137, in page 49, to leave out line 42 and insert:
    'has received specific Parliamentary approval; or
    (c) granted by a development order in respect of development specifically described in the order; or'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can discuss at the same time Amendment No. 138 and Amendment No. 139.
    Mr. MacDermot: These are three technical Amendments to Clause 58(3). The purpose of Clause 58 is to provide that land of statutory undertakers does not become "operational" land until a "specific planning permission" attaches to it. A "specific planning permission" is defined as (a) a permission granted on a specific planning application; and (b) permission granted by a development order for development specifically authorised by a Private Act or an
    780
    order subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Paragraph (b) was drafted with Class XII of the General Development Order of 1963 in mind; but it is too narrow, because it fails to cover specific permissions granted in a special development order, or by the General Development Order for development specifically authorised by an order which, though not requiring affirmative resolution, is subject to special Parliamentary procedure—for example, an order made in favour of harbour undertakers under the Harbours Act, 1964. These Amendments rectify these defects.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 138, page 50, line 6, leave out ' is specifically authorised by statute ' and insert:
    ' has received specific Parliamentary approval'.
    Amendment No. 139, page 50, line 9, after ' Parliament' insert:
    ' or by an order which has been brought into operation in accordance with the provisions of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 59.
    PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS.
    Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 140, in page 50, line 23, to leave out paragraph (b).
    The Minister of State said in Committee that the question of statutory undertakers was horribly complex. Everyone would agree with him, especially after hearing him move the previous series of Amendments. I hope that what I seek to do in this simple Amendment will be clear.
    Subsection (2,b) provides that if a statutory undertaker proposes to acquire an interest in land with a view to its being used for the purpose of carrying on its undertaking, it goes straight to the Minister and by-passes the local authority. Some people consider that the privileges of statutory undertakers should be reduced much more drastically than I propose. The number of statutory undertakers is continuously increasing. There is a long list of them already. There is the original list of statutory undertakers in Section 221 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, and

    781
    since then we have had others, such as the British Airports Authority. We are now proposing to add more, such as the passenger transport authorities and the National Bus Company referred to in the Transport Bill.
    All these additional bodies will have the status of statutory undertakers and the special privileges which attach to it. As the Minister of State said in Committee, this matter caused the Government some anxiety and they thought it right to modify the privileges which these bodies possess. I am in sympathy with him. But, although we are limiting the rights of statutory undertakers in these three Clauses, in some respects, we are, I am sorry to say, expanding them in others. We are reducing the amount of compensation to which they are entitled in certain circumstances, but paragraph (b) which I am seeking to delete is an expansion of the powers they already possess.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted an example in Standing Committee which I hope is a hypothetical one. Supposing the British Airports Authority bought up land adjoining Heathrow or Stansted airport and claimed that it was operational land on the strength of the existing adjoining airport, it could then construct runways on the land to link up with the existing airport. That was the situation which the hon. and learned Gentleman said we had to deal with in the three Clauses on statutory undertakers. As I understand it, if the paragraph is left in, this would be land which the British Airports Authority propose to acquire an interest in with a view to its being used as part of their undertaking. They want to have land next door to Heathrow for some new runways, and under Clause 59 they are exempt from normal planning procedures. They can go straight to the sponsoring Ministers and by-pass the local authority.
    The local authorities, would, I believe, approve of what I am seeking to do by this Amendment. They would like to be able to express an opinion on important planning matters such as this. They entirely approve the object of Clause 60, under which the British Airports Authority would not be entitled to full compensation if permission were refused
    782
    for the development, but they do not see any reason in general why the statutory undertakers should be put in a privileged position for this class of land which is proposed to be acquired for use by the undertaking.
    I hope that the hon. and learned Gentlemen will agree that the deletion of paragraph (b) would be a great improvement.
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has quite followed what has happened. We are not creating a new right; we are restoring a right which already exists and which has been taken away in another part of the Bill. At present in the case instanced by the hon. Gentleman, the British Airports Authority can acquire land adjoining the airfield and they can claim that it is operational land. If there is a dispute between them and the planning authority on whether it is operational land, that issue is determined by the sponsoring Minister alone. The planning Minister does not come into it. Once it is established to be operational land, if the planning authority refuse planning permission, they have to pay compensation at present of 100 per cent. We are saying that in future newly acquired land of that kind cannot become operational land until it gets planning permission.
    The statutory undertaker in such a situation now would apply to the planning authority for planning permission. If it were refused, they then have a right of appeal. Appeals on planning applications by statutory undertakers are at present decided jointly by the sponsoring Minister and the planning Minister, and that it what this paragraph provides. It is an appeal machinery. If that planning permission is given, provided it satisfies the other tests, the land will then become operational land. In future in practice the determination this way round of what is operational land will be decided jointly by the two Ministers, and in this way planning interests will be properly balanced with the interests of statutory undertakers. There are other provisions elsewhere that ensure that this is carried through, and that the operational land decisions will be determined jointly by the two Ministers.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 60.
    COMPENSATION FOR STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS IN CASES OF ADVERSE PLANNING DECISIONS.
    Amendment made: No. 142, in page 51, line 14, leave out Clause 60.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 66.
    UNOPPOSED REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF PLANNING PERMISSION.
    4.45 a.m.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 143, in page 53, line 36, leave out from ' permission ' to ' have ' in line 38 and insert
    'but have not submitted the order to the Minister for confirmation by him, and—
    (a) the owner and the occupier of the land and all persons who in the authority's opinion will be affected by the order'.
    I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 144 and 145. The intention is to secure that the new procedure introduced by this Clause for enabling unopposed revocation and modification orders to take effect without being confirmed works in the way intended without undue complication.
    Amendment No. 143 secures an improvement in this way and does two things. First, the insertion of the words
    "but have not submitted the order to the Minister for confirmation by him"
    is designed to make it clear that, so long as the order is in draft form, it has not been submitted in the sense that it has to be confirmed by the Minister. Second, it spells out the categories of persons to receive notices in a clear way so that the rights of those concerned will be fully known, not by reference to Clause 27(3), but as they appear in the Amendment in these words:
    "the owner and the occupier of the land and all persons who in the authority's opinion will be affected by the order".
    Amendment 144 makes certain that the essential precondition for operating the Clause is quite clear; that is, that the affected persons do not object to the order. The existing reference to the parties not wishing to be heard is not here, since the fact that they do not want a hearing does not necessarily preclude their being opposed to the order,
    784
    and it is essential for the whole of this part of the Clause that the order to be made is unopposed.
    Amendment 145 removes the last two lines of the existing subsection (2) and inserts a new subsection putting the authority under a specific duty to serve notice on the affected parties on the same lines as the advertisement required under the same subsection. In addition, the notices are to state that, in accordance with subsection (5), no compensation will be payable if the affected parties do not ask the Minister for a hearing and the order, therefore, takes effect without being confirmed by the Minister. If there is any question of a hearing, the procedure under this part of the Clause does not operate.
    Mr. Graham Page: We are here dealing with an important matter. It is a new procedure whereby the local planning authority could, if it did not carry it out with great care and if the procedure was not laid down for the full protection of the individual, deprive him of the right to compensation on revocation of planning permission. With these Amendments, there is full protection for the individual, so long as the procedure does make certain that the individual knows what rights he is giving up. He is giving up the right to compensation for revocation of a planning permission. If he is satisfied that there is no compensation he can claim, that he has not incurred any expense he can recover on revocation, and if he makes that known to the local planning authority, clearly then the procedure should work. If it does work successfully it is going to save a lot of trouble to the local planning authority, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has got the Amendments right. I have not been able to pick a hole in them, anyway.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 144, in page 53, line 39, leave out from ' not' to ' and' in line 41 and insert ' object to the order'.
    No. 145, in page 54, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert:
    (3) The authority shall also serve notice to the same effect on the persons mentioned in subsection (l)(a) above, and the notice shall include a statement of the effect of subsection (6) of this section.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

    Clause 75.
    NEW POWERS TO AUTHORISE STOPPING-UP AND DIVERSION OF HIGHWAYS.
    Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I beg to move Amendment No. 147, in page 61, line 10, at end insert 'or raising or lowering'.
    I can be very brief. The only point I wish to have confirmed on this Amendment is the actual meaning of the words used in the Clause as it stands. I want to be satisfied that where one refers to "the stopping-up or diversion of any other highway" that would include the provision of a subway, or if necessary, a light footbridge in certain circumstances.
    This is a problem which naturally affects a number of amenity and other bodies. I believe the definition is satisfactory if one takes into account certain provisions of the Transport Act.
    Mr. Skeffington: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The sub-section does apply the Transport Act.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, Amendment No. 148, in page 61, line 18, at end insert—
    Provided that in determining to make an Order under this subsection the Minister shall have regard to the interest of the users of the subsidiary highway.
    This is another rather small problem. As one reads the Clause it does seem to suggest that we are very concerned with the provisions for the safety and free movement of traffic on the main arterial roads, but are not at all concerned about the position of people wishing to use minor roads or even footpaths and who may be affected.
    Again I believe that other provisions of other Acts may meet this point, but there are many bodies outside this House who are concerned about this matter, and I should like an assurance that the words proposed in my Amendment are not required to satisfy the object I am seeking.
    Mr. Skeffington: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Subsection (4) of Clause 75 does apply
    786
    Section 154 of the principal Act, and this enables the users he has in mind to be protected.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 61, line 23, after 'footpath', insert 'or bridleway'.
    The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we can take Government Amendment No. 150.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I believe this Amendment is acceptable to the Government. It is a minor Amendment merely ensuring that when we talk about the reduction of roads to footpaths we are also thinking of their reduction from roads to bridleways.
    Mr. Skeffington: I would advise the House to accept this Amendment. It will make a useful addition.
    Mr. Allason: In Committee we were told that this was in order to provide pedestrian precincts. I am surprised if now it turns out that it will also provide bridleways across the countryside. Is it really intended that this Clause should be used for closing roads and turning them into bridleways? This was not explained in Committee. When I read the Amendment I visualised camels being led through a bazaar.
    Mr. Skeffington: Normally speaking, that provision will be an urban one. But it is conceivable—although it will only infrequently happen—that, on the edge of a town, there may be an order which would cover a bridleway. It is for that circumstance that we thought it a good idea to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Graham Page: We have heard a lot about bridleways on Amendment No. 149 but we have heard nothing about Amendment No. 150, which consists of ten lines or so.
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not know what is worrying the hon. Gentleman about Amendment No. 150. Its effect is to change both the class of persons qualified to claim compensation and the basis on which the compensation shall be payable. If there is any specific question, I shall be glad to try to answer it.
    Mr. Graham Page: This is an important alteration. In the Bill as drafted, any frontager on the highway could claim compensation. This is now being reduced to a claim for compensation for the interruption of access to the property. It may be the right thing to do; it may be the intention of the Government not to give compensation for any other damage to property adjoining that highway. [Interruption.] I am sure that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) is interested in this, but if he is not perhaps he would like to go and listen to something else. It is difficult to put a point like this when there is mumbling from below the Gangway.
    The alteration brought about by the Amendment is that compensation is now to be restricted to the loss of access to the property and will not apply to any other damage to the property.
    Mr. MacDermot: I would not describe it as restrictive. On the contrary, it gives a more generous basis of compensation because, in addition to the compensation for the difference in the value of the land, it proposes to increase what can be claimed by way of disturbance so as to include any other loss or damage which is so attributable. We envisage that, in some of these cases, the real damage, as it were, which will be suffered will be the need to provide for other access and do works, perhaps, to provide access at the rear. It is this that we thought should be recoverable. We have thus extended the compensation provisions in this way. The model on which it is based, and the closest equivalent, is that compensation payable on a discontinuance order.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 150, in page 61, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    (3) Any person who at the time of an order under subsection (2) above has an interest in land having lawful access to a highway to which the order relates shall be entitled to be compensated by the local planning authority in respect of any depreciation in the value of his interest which is directly attributable to the order and any other loss or damage which is so attributable.
    In this subsection ' lawful access' means access authorised by planning permission granted under the principal Act or the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 or access in
    788
    respect of which no such permission is necessary.
    (4) A claim for compensation under subsection (3) shall be made to the local planning authority within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 86.
    SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 155, in page 64, line 33, at end to add:
    'and the Minister shall maintain a central register open for public inspection recording the dates upon which and the areas in respect of which the provisions of the Act shall have respectively come into operation'.
    This is to amend in particular the provision in the Clause which permits the Minister to bring this Bill into operation at various dates, to apply it to various parts of the country and to apply various Clauses at various times. We are not to have the Bill brought into operation at any one time nor at any one place. It is not to apply to the country as a whole. Certain Clauses and even certain repeals in the repeal Schedule will be brought in piecemeal.
    It will, therefore, be difficult for the public to know what parts of the Act have been brought into operation and where they have been brought into operation. This Amendment suggests some sort of central register, to be kept by the Ministry, so that it will be convenient for people to search the register quickly and see what parts of the Act are in operation in what places.
    It may well be, if a development is contemplated in some area, the quickest way to find out will be from some central register, instead of searching through stacks of Statutory Instruments bringing the Act into operation piecemeal. Can the Minister give us the assurance that there will be such a register maintained at the Ministry?
    5.0 a.m.
    Mr. Skeffington: The Government think that this is a very helpful suggestion. For reasons which I need not go into now, we would like to re-draft the subsection, but in principle, we accept the idea.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If I understand this

    789
    to be an assurance to bring this in at a later stage, I would beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Schedule.
  CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES IN SECTIONS 51 AND 52 TO 'THE RESPONSIBLE MINISTER OR MINISTERS '.
  1. In relation to matters specified in the first column of the Table below (being in each case a matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of section 51(1) above as one which may be referred to a Planning Inquiry Commission under that section) ' the

  TABLE

  Referred matter

  Affecting England only

  Affecting Wales only

  Affecting both England and Wales

  1. Application for planning permission or appeal under section 23 of the principal Act—

  (a) relating to operational land of statutory undertakers,

  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and the appropriate Minister (if different).

  The Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister (if different).

  The Secretary of State, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the appropriate Minister (if different)

  (b) relating to other land

  Minister of Housing and Local Governement.

  The Secretary of State

  The Secretary of State and the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

  2. Proposal that a government department should give a direction under section 41 of the principal Act or that development should be carried out by a government department.

  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister (if different) in charge of the government department concerned.

  The Secretary of State and the Minister (if different) in charge of the government department concerned.

  The Secretary of State, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister (if different) in charge of the government department concerned.

  —[Mr. MacDermot.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Schedule 1.
  SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN GREATER LONDON.
  Amendments made: No. 158, in page 66, line 26, leave out ' 3' and insert:
  '(Approval or rejection of structure plan by Minister)'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
  Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 159, in page 67, line 20, at end insert:
  12A. The Greater London Council, before submitting to the Minister proposals for alterations to the structure plan, shall consult with the London borough councils and the Common
  responsible Minister or Ministers' for the purposes of sections 51 and 52 of this Act—

  (a) in the case of a matter affecting England only, are those specified opposite in the second column of the Table;

  (b) in the case of a matter affecting Wales only, are those specified opposite in the third column of the Table; and

  (c) in the case of a matter affecting both England and Wales, are those specified opposite in the fourth column of the Table.

  2. Where an entry in the second, third or fourth column of the Table specifies two or more Ministers, that entry shall be construed as referring to those Ministers acting jointly.
  3. In relation to operational land of statutory undertakers, a reference in the Table to 'the appropriate Minister' shall be construed in accordance with the definition of that expression in section 221(1) of the principal Act.
  Council or, in the case of alterations affecting only part of the area of Greater London, with such of those councils as are affected by the alterations, and shall give to each of those councils an opportunity to make representations with respect to the alterations and shall consider any representations so made.
  In Greater London we have for some time felt that there has been uneasiness between the London boroughs, or some of them, and the Greater London Council on matters of planning, and this arises from the feeling in some of these Boroughs, that the Greater London Council is acting as a kind of "Big Brother" and interfering in matters which do not concern it.
  In the London Government Act there is provision for all kinds of consultation

  791
  between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. These have not always worked as well as one would have hoped. It is my aim to secure some improvement in the drafting of the Bill so as to ensure that the relationships between the G.L.C. on the one hand, and the London boroughs on the other are as harmonious and as workable as they can be.
  Under Clause 1 the Greater London Council will have to consult the Boroughs about any matters which they have to keep under review, as required by that Clause. Clause 4 is concerned with alterations to the structure plan, resulting from the additional surveys which have been conducted in Clause 1, but there is no similar obligation there on the Greater London Council. In Greater London there are special provisions relating to the structure plan, and that is what we are concerned with in this Schedule. As I understand it, the Greater London Development Plan, provided for under Section 25 of the London Government Act, 1963, will become the structure plan, when it is completed, and the repeal of that Section will not be effected by the Government until this plan has been approved. Under Section 26(2) of the Act the G.L.C. could have altered the Greater London Development Plan, but Section 27(3) of the Act would have required it to consult the Boroughs before doing so. In this Amendment I have copied, with minor alterations, the wording of Section 27(3) of the London Government Act, so that there is a duty upon the G.L.C. to consult with the various councils before making any alterations to the structure plan, or to consult with those of them which may be affected by any such alterations.
  The Parliamentary Secretary knows that in my borough in particular there has been some anxiety on this. I have been in correspondence with him and he has given a most reassuring answer which, I am sure, the Borough of Bromley will be delighted to have. He said that on repeal of Section 27(3) of the London Government Act, his intention is that provision for consultation between the G.L.C. and the London Boroughs on amendment to the Greater London Development Plan and between the boroughs and the G.L.C. on amendments
  792
  to borough structure plans when these are approved, shall be prescribed in regulations under Clause 11.
  All I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary this morning is whether he does not think it would be a good thing to put these words in, to relieve him of the necessity of making regulations later.
  Mr. Skeffington: I confirm that intention, as I wrote to him. It is not necessary to have the words in the Bill and it is better to have consultation by regulation or circular as is provided for elsewhere.
  Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful for that assurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Further Amendments made: No. 160 in page 67, line 28, leave out ' 5' and insert ' (Preparation of local plans)'.
  No. 161, in page 67, line 40, leave out ' 5(4) and (6)' and insert ' (Preparation of local plans) (6) and (9)'.
  No. 162, in page 67, line 44, leave out ' 5(7)' and insert ' Preparation of local plans) (10)'.
  No. 163, in page 68, line 5, leave out ' 5(9)' and insert ' (Publicity for preparation of local plans) (2)'.
  No. 164, in page 68, line 9, leave out ' 5' and insert ' (Preparation of local plans) or (Publicity for preparation of local plans)'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

  Schedule 3
  CONTROL OF WORKS FOR DEMOLITION, ALTERATION OR EXTENSION OF LISTED BUILDINGS.
  Amendment made: No. 246, in page 72, line 35, leave out ' section 33' and insert ' listed building'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 165, in page 72, leave out lines 39 to 43.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can discuss Amendment No. 169.
  Mr. MacDermot: These Amendments set out the procedure by which local planning authorities are required to notify the Minister of applications made to them for listed building consent, to assist the Minister in deciding whether

  793
  to call in a consent. The provision in new paragraph (3) sets out the procedure for planning authorities outside Greater London and means that a copy will have to be sent to the Minister of any consent which they propose to grant. After notifying the Minister, the planning authority must not grant consent on the application until 28 days have passed from the date of notification, or the Minister has stated that he does not propose to intervene. The London Borough procedure repeats the current procedure in the relevant regulations.
  Paragraph (5) enables the Minister to give directions exempting specific types of application from this notification procedure. He may not exempt application for consent to demolish listed buildings. The present intention is to issue a direction exempting from the notification procedure applications for works which would affect only the interiors of Grade II non-starred buildings. All others will be subject to the Minister's supervision. The power will be used to keep the amenity societies informed of applications.
  Mr. Allason: I wonder whether the Minister could tell us what has happened to the other specified persons in Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3 who have been taken out in lines 39 to 43. There was a requirement to notify specified persons who were—
  Mr. MacDermot: My last comment was meant to cover them. Paragraph 5(2) re-enacts the original paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3.
  Mr. Allason: I had got that. I was about to say that it occurred there. It is not clear which notification is which. There is a requirement to notify under the new paragraph 3(1) and there is also a requirement to notify under paragraph 5. It all depends on what is specified, but it is a little confusing, if the Minister has 28 days to consider whether he wants to call something in, why there should be a separate requirement to notify the Minister. Is it a different form which has to be filled in or is it different parts?
  Paragraph 5(2) says that the Minister may call in the application for consent. It really is a question of how he is notified. Is he notified under paragraph 3(1)(a) or is it a case where he has had
  794
  informal discussions and decides to call the matter in?
  I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what is the intention of the change. By "change" I mean the effect of this Amendment from what was in the Bill previously. Is it very much stricter control by the Minister and the G.L.C., or is it only a tightening up and putting in greater detail the arrangements which are intended, but that the general effect of what goes to the Minister will remain the same?
  It is interesting to note that under this provision the G.L.C. can give absolute instructions to boroughs, which is liable to put them to considerable expense, and, of course, in turn the Minister can do the same thing to local authorities.
  Mr. MacDermot: There is no change for London. We have merely re-enacted the existing provisions. The first main change in paragraph 5 is that we are writing specifically into the Bill that there is no power of exemption for applications for consent to demolish listed buildings. These have to be notified to the Minister.
  The second main change is that we are limiting the notification to the Minister of those cases in which the authorities are proposing to grant consent. This will save paper work at the Ministry. Those are all that we need to consider for the purpose of call-in. Otherwise, we will be able to exempt certain classes, but I have indicated the only class which at present we are proposing to make the subject of an exemption.
  Paragraph 5(2) is a separate matter. This is to keep alive the power which will enable amenity societies to be informed of the applications.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 166, in page 72, line 44, leave out ' section 33' and insert ' listed building '.— [Mr. MacDermot.]
  5.15 a.m.
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 167, in page 72, line 46, at end insert:
  2.—(1) Regulations under this Act may provide that an application for listed building consent shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by one or other of the certificates

  795
  described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 16(1) of the principal Act (requirement of certificate that applicant for planning permission is the owner of the land or has given notice to the owners of his intended application, or has tried to do so) and may make with respect to such certificates provision corresponding to subsections (2) to (4), (6) and (7) of that section.
  (2) If any person issues a certificate which purports to comply with the requirements of regulations made by virtue of this paragraph and which contains a statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or recklessly issues a certificate which purports to comply with those requirements and which contains a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
  This is to enable the Minister to make Regulations about the provision of certificates to applications for listed building consent analogous to those in Section 16 of the 1962 Act in relation to planning permissions. It is to ensure that an application for such consent is not made by a person with no interest in the building without the knowledge of the owner or the tenant.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 168, in page 73, line 2, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 169, in page 73, line 14, at end insert:
  3.—(1) Subject to the following provisions, a local planning authority (other than a London borough council) to whom application is made for listed building consent shall not grant such consent, unless they have notified the Minister of the application (giving particulars of the works for which the consent is required) and either—

  (a) a period of twenty-eight days has expired, beginning with the date of the notification, without the Minister having directed the reference of the application to him; or

  (b) the Minister has notified the authority that he does not intend to require the reference of the application.

  (2) The Minister may at any time before the said period expires give notice to the authority that he requires further time in which to consider whether to require the reference of the application to him and the foregoing sub-paragraph shall then have effect with the substitution for a period of twenty-eight days or such longer period as may be specified in the Minister's notice.
  4.—(1) Subject to the following provisions, where application for listed building consent is made to a local planning authority, being a
  796
  London borough council, and the authority do not determine to refuse it, they shall notify the Greater London Council of the application (giving particulars of the works for which the consent is required) and shall not grant such consent unless authorised or directed to do so under the following sub-paragraph.
  (2) On receipt of notification under sub-paragraph (1) above the Greater London Council may either—

  (a) authorise the local planning authority to grant or refuse the application as they think fit; or

  (b) give them directions as to how they are to determine it.

  (3) The Greater London Council shall not authorise the local planning authority as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, nor under sub-paragraph (2)(b) above direct them to grant listed building consent, unless the Council have notified the Minister of the application made to the local planning authority (giving particulars of the works for which the consent is required) and either—

  (a)a period of twenty-eight days has expired, beginning with the date of the notification, without the Minister having directed the reference of the application to him; or

  (b) the Minister has notified the Council that he does not intend to require the reference of the application.

  (4) The Minister may at any time before the said period of twenty-eight days expires give notice to the Council that he requires further time in which to consider whether to require the reference of the application to him and the foregoing sub-paragraph shall then have effect with the substitution for the period of twenty-eight days of such longer period as may be specified in the Minister's notice.
  5.—(1) The Minister may give directions that, in the case of such descriptions of application for listed building consent as he may specify, other than such consent for the demolition of a building, paragraphs 3 and 4 above shall not apply; and accordingly, so long as the directions are in force local planning authorities may determine applications of such descriptions in any manner they think fit, without notifying the Minister or, as the case may be, the Greater London Council.
  (2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Schedule, the Minister may give directions to local planning authorities requiring them, in such cases or classes of case as may be specified in the directions, to notify to him and to such other persons as may be so specified any applications made to them for listed building consent, and the decisions taken by the authorities thereon.
  No. 170, in line 16 leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 171, in line 45 leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 172, in page 74, line 9, leave out 'section 33 ' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 247, in line 17 leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 173, in line 39 leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 174, in page 75, line 9, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 175, in line 26 leave out ' section 33 ' and insert ' listed building'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 176, in page 75, line 30, at end insert:
  8.—(1) The following provisions shall have effect where the local planning authority have made an order under paragraph 5 of this Schedule but have not submitted the order to the Minister for confirmation by him, and—

  (a)the owner and occupier of the land and all persons who in the authority's opinion will be affected by the order have notified the authority in writing that they do not object to the order; and

  (b)it appears to the authority that no claim for compensation is likely to arise under paragraph 7 above.

  (2) The authority shall advertise in the prescribed manner the fact that the order has been made, and the advertisement shall specify—

  (a)the period (not less than twenty-eight days from the date on which the advertisement first appears) within which persons affected by the order may give notice to the Minister that they wish for an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose; and

  (b)the period (not less than fourteen days from the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) above) at the expiration of which, if no such notice is given to the Minister, the order may take effect by virtue of this paragraph and without being confirmed by the Minister.

  (3)The authority shall also serve notice to the same effect on the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, and the notice shall include a statement of the effect of sub-paragraph (7) below.
  (5)The authority shall send a copy of any advertisement published under sub-paragraph (2) above to the Minister, not more than three days after the publication.
  (6) If within the period referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above no person claiming to be affected by the order has given notice to the Minister as aforesaid and the Minister has not directed that the order be submitted to him for confirmation, the order shall at the expiration of the period referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above take effect by virtue of this paragraph and without being confirmed by the Minister as required by paragraph 5 of this Schedule.
  (6)This paragraph does not apply to an order revoking or modifying a listed building
  798
  consent granted by the Minister under Part V of this Act or under this Schedule.
  (7) No compensation shall be payable under paragraph 7 of this Schedule in respect of an order under paragraph 5 thereof which takes effect by virtue of this paragraph and without being confirmed by the Minister.
  Mr. Allason: This follows the wording of Clause 76, suitably modified. We speak here of compensation for listed building consent, but, under Clause 34(2), that can also be planning consent. If someone says that he does not want to claim for listed building consent, I think that this does not bar him from making a claim for revocation of planning consent, which he might well wish to make.
  Mr. MacDermot: Listed building consent does not necessarily carry with it planning consent. This deals with the revocation of listed building consent and there are other provisions to deal with revocation of planning consent.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 177, in page 75, line 33, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 178, in page 76, line 3, leave out ' section 35 ' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 179, in line 12, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 180, in line 25, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 181, in line 36, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.2
  No. 182, in line 46, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 183, in page 76, line 46, after ' may ', insert ' subject to the agreement of the owner'.
  The purchase notice is valid under Section 35(l)(a) of the principal Act if the land is useless in its existing state or under conditions attached to the consent or with all the other consents which have been given. Before the applicant can press his purchase notice, he must show that. Section 35(4) takes no account of prospective use involving new development or works requiring consent, save where the local planning authority or the Minister undertakes to grant consent.
  This is very similar to the case we have already had, but I want to press

  799
  it again because we did not get any success on the last occasion. The Minister may quash a purchase notice by directing that consent for other works can be granted. Suppose the owner does not agree to this. Surely the Government have not got the intention of forcing this upon an unwilling owner? I find it terribly hard to believe that they really are prepared to do this, that they will say to the owner of a house, "No. By carrying out certain works this property can be made viable" when the owner does not want to carry out the works, and has reasonable ground for resisting. I am sure that the owner's consent really ought to be obtained, and I trust that the Government will this time accept the Amendment.
  Mr. MacDermot: I will see if I can persuade the hon. Gentleman. Quite a lot of heat was engendered last time we discussed this. What we are dealing with is the situation where the owner of a listed building is trying to get the local authority to purchase it, so it is not as though the wretched owner were being compelled to do works to the house he does not want to do or to retain a house he does not want. In order to get the local authority to buy it he has got to show that it is what my hon. Friend called a white elephant and that there is no reasonable prospect of its having beneficial use. It is surely a fair answer for the authority to say, "We are prepared to give a grant of planning permission for something which will make it of beneficial use." If he does not want that, and does not want to do it himself, the answer is, "Put it on the market." That is not a hardship, because he wants to sell it, anyway.
  Mr. Allason: Yes, but this is quite unreasonable. If there is a cottage in the High Street, and it is a residential property, the Minister says, "If you put a shop front in that cottage and turn it into a tea shop you can make a packet out of it." The Minister nods his head. Those are precisely the circumstances which could apply here. This, I think, is utterly unreasonable. Why should somebody have to turn a cottage into a tea shop if he does not want to?
  Mr. MacDermot: Sell it to somebody else with the benefit of permission to
  800
  use it as a tea shop. I should think it very easy to sell.
  Mr. Allason: The Minister nods his head. He does agree that this is the way the property has got to go. It may turn out profitable to sell it as a tea shop; it may turn out to be very unprofitable. I have known plenty of tea shops to go bust. Why should the local authority be able to avoid its responsibilities simply by this means? I think this is thoroughly unreasonable. The local authority is simply to pass off its responsibility to somebody else. If it is going to be so profitable to turn the house into a tea shop, why does not the local authority turn it into a tea shop and sell it and make a profit, instead of the owner?
  Amendment negatived.
  Further Amendments made: No. 184, in page 76, line 47, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'; No. 185, in page 77, line 1, leave out 'section 33' and insert ' listed building '.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 186, in page 77, line 2, at end insert:
  (5) If it appears to the Minister that the land, or any part of the land, could be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use within a reasonable time by the carrying out of any development for which planning permission ought to be granted, he may, in lieu of confirming the listed building purchase notice, or in lieu of confirming it so far as it relates to that part of the land, as the case may be, direct that planning permission for that development shall be granted in the event of an application being made in that behalf.
  Paragraph (9) of the Schedule lays down the courses of action open to the Minister after a listed building purchase notice is transmitted to him. As the Bill stands, the Minister is not empowered to direct a grant of planning permission, as distinct from a listed building consent, when considering a listed building purchase notice. The Amendment would empower him to do so.
  Mr. Allason:Are we allowed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss the proposed Opposition Amendment to the Government Amendment; in line 3, after 'may', insert
  'subject to the agreement of the owner'

  801
  and, if so, are we also allowed to vote on it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member may discuss the Amendment to the Amendment, but it cannot be voted upon.
  Mr. Allason: I regret that because I am astonished at the way in which the citizen is being treated these days. The arguments which I could adduce on this matter are the same as those my hon. Friends put forward in the last discussion, and I rise merely to record my protest at this state of affairs.
  Mr. MacDermot: I answer that protest by saying that this has been a feature of purchase notice procedure since 1947 and was maintained during the tenure of office of the Conservative Party.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 187, in page 77, line 16, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 188, in line 46, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 189, in page 78, line 2, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 190, in line 5, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 191, in line 8, leave out 'section 35' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 192, in line 12, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 193, in line 14, leave out 'section 35'.
  No. 194, in line 19, leave out from 'A' to end of line and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  No. 195, to leave out line 22.—[Mr. A llason.]
  No. 196, in line 26, leave out from 'a' to 'shall' in line 27 and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.
  No. 197, in line 30, leave out from 'a' to 'at' in line 31 and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.
  No. 198, in line 34, leave out from 'a' to end of line and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.
  No. 199, in line 45, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 200, in page 79, line 3, leave out 'under section 37'.
  No. 201, in line 36, leave out from 'the to 'or' in line 37 and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.
  No. 202, in line 29, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 203, in page 80, line 7, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 204, in line 11, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  No. 205, in line 24, leave out '41(2)' and insert '41(3)'.
  No. 206, in line 32, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 207, in page 80, line 33, leave out 'and with it' and insert 'but not'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood that this Amendment was considered with an earlier Amendment.
  Mr. Page: I do not recollect it being discussed. If it was, then, in the words of the Amendment, I was "with it". In using the phrases "and with it" and "but not" the Amendment may sound nonsense, but it has a great deal of sense behind it. The provision of Part V to which the Amendment relates states:
  "Any proceedings on or arising out of an application for section 33 consent made while the building preservation notice was in force shall lapse and with it any consent granted with respect to the building."
  I would read "any consent" as covering any planning permission or anything of that nature to do with the property. Why should planning consent lapse merely because a building preservation notice has failed? Under Clause 41 the building preservation notice, I understand, is a holding operation prior to the listing of the building as a listed building. If when the building preservation notice is removed it takes with it any other consents, it seems that just by putting up a building preservation notice and then removing it the local planning authority could rub out all planning permissions. I cannot think that that is the intention. Perhaps the Minister can explain the words, "and with it" a little better.
  5.30 a.m.
  Mr. MacDermot: I am not sure that the words "and with it" are grammatical because it is the proceedings that lapse and one could hardly refer to them as "it", but that is a matter which can be looked at.
  The point made by the hon. Member is misconceived. The consent which lapses with the building preservation notice is the listed building consent. The error in his argument is that a listed building consent can operate as a planning permission. The converse is true —a planning permission can operate as a listed building consent. There is no question of withdrawing the benefit of a planning permission merely by allowing a listed building consent to lapse. The Amendment, therefore, is unnecessary.
  Mr. Graham Page: If the Minister gives the assurance that that is the intention, I accept it, but it is certainly not what is said grammatically or ungrammatically in the Clause. It needs a small amendment in the wording. On his assurance that that will be done, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 208, in page 80, line 35, leave out from 'Any' to 'served' and insert 'listed building enforcement notice'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

  Schedule 5.
  ADAPTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF ENACTMENTS, ETC.
  Amendments made: No. 209, in page 85, line 32, after 'Minister', insert 'shall serve a notice'.
  No. 210, in line 35, at end insert:
  'shall serve a notice in the prescribed form'. —[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 211, in page 85, leave out lines 40 to 43.
  This Amendment would leave out paragraph 17, which deals with the power of the local planning authority to make agreements with landowners restricting or regulating the development or use of their land. As the law stands, when a local
  804
  planning authority makes such an agreement with the owner of the land for developing that land it is essential that the agreement should have the approval of the Minister. Otherwise it is invalid. Paragraph 17 seeks to remove that condition and provides that no longer shall it be necessary to have the Minister's approval to agreements of this sort between the local planning authority and developing owners.
  These agreements which restrict or regulate the development of the land, may contain financial provisions. That is clearly stated in Section 37 of the principal Act. They take the place of planning permission and the developer may on occasion be under pressure to get on with the development he wishes to undertake. No doubt an agreement of this sort may seem to him to be quicker and easier than putting in a planning application, having it refused and going to appeal against that refusal. If he can negotiate it with the local planning authority and have it by agreement, that may seem the course of least resistance to him.
  There is in that set-up a risk that the agreement is unfair to the developer, or it may be too generous to him. A local planning authority may wish to get an agreement of that sort through and may permit development which would not have been permitted had it been done in the ordinary way by application for planning permission. I am in favour of giving the local authority wide powers to manage its own affairs, but before doing so we should have the facts on which to judge. I do not know what facts there are behind the amendment of the law contained in paragraph 17.
  How frequently has approval been withheld for such agreements when local authorities have applied for the Minister's approval? Does the Minister turn them down frequently? How long does it take to approve such agreements? Are local authorities and developers held up for any length of time while agreements are being approved by the Minister? What size of staff is maintained at the Ministry to deal with this? Is it overburdening the Ministry to undertake this work? For what reasons are these agreements thrown out? Before agreeing to the amendment of the law, we should be given some facts.
  Mr. MacDermot: I do not know if I can make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman. This is the first of a series of Amendments dealing with a number of questions which were raised by the hon. Gentleman in a speech which lasted for more than an hour which he made at our last sitting in Standing Committee. I did not have time to answer them all then. I agreed to write to the hon. Gentleman. I have written to him and answered all his questions. If we are to have these debates all over again and put all these matters on the record, it will carry us very late indeed. It is already late. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to put only those questions which are essential to put on the record. Then if he will refer to his speech in Committee, perhaps that is the way in which, without duplicating the record, I can answer the questions shortly.
  The reason why we want to abolish this procedure of requiring the consent of the Minister to these agreements is that it is well known and understood now by authorities what are the proper kinds of agreements to make. Our control is not resulting in our disapproving of agreements because they are objectionable. Our departmental lawyers have to spend a lot of time going into detail over agreements which have already been drawn up by local authorities' own lawyers, and we do not believe that this is the type of supervision that we ought to be exercising. It is wasteful of time. It is not necessary. This is a matter which can be left to the local authorities.
  An argument was raised previously that there might be abuse of this procedure and some element of duress by local authorities towards the planning applicant. If such a mischief exists, the existing procedure is not apt in any way to deal with it, because, by the time that it reaches us, it is an agreement. We have no reason to think that it is anything other than one freely arrived at. The remedy for such a mischief, if it exists—we have no evidence that it does —lies in the hands of the applicant: he can refuse to submit to the duress and insist on his application and, if he does not get permission, to appeal against the refusal.
  Mr. Graham Page: I thought that I had introtduced the Amendment very
  806
  briefly, and then I was reprimanded. It is too bad of the Minister to deprive the Sleeper of the House of the soporific effect of our voices. He is sound asleep now. How he leads the House when he is sound asleep, I do not know. They should call him the Duke of Plaza Toro in future.
  I am grateful for the letter the Minister wrote me, but it was only a letter to me, and these points are important and should go on the record. It may well be that some Amendments will need to be made, but in view of the assurance he has given me on this one I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment 212, in page 85, line 43, at end add:
  18. For section 43(1) there shall be substituted the following:—
  'If any person who proposes to carry out or has carried out any operations on land or who proposes to make or has made any change in the use of land wishes to have it determined whether the carrying out of these operations or the making of that change would or did as the case may be constitute or involve development of the land and if so whether an application for planning permission in respect thereof is required under this part of this Act, having regard to the provisions of any existing planning permission or permissions and to the provisions of the development order, he may, either as part of an application for planning permission, or without any such application, apply to the local planning authority to determine that question.'.
  This matter was discussed in Committee, but not on the Schedule. The Amendment deals with Section 43 of the 1962 Act, which has been very useful for testing the legality of proposed developments—that is, whether they need planning permission—both operations and change of use. But it could be made far more useful by using it to test the legality of past development, whether of an operational type or of change of use. By redrafting the Section it could be used for that purpose.
  I do not mean that it should whitewash deliberate flouting of town planning law in the past. It should be used after a breach of planning law. But it becomes even more important, now that a limitation period for change of use is being removed, that one should have some method of testing the validity of a development without inviting an enforcement notice.

  807
  The Amendment will be found to be satisfactorily drafted if the principle is accepted that Section 43 procedure should apply to proposed development in the future and not merely to past development.
  Mr. MacDermot: As I indicated in one of our earlier debates, I fully accept that it is necessary for us to bring forward a satisfactory certification procedure to accompany the abolition of the four-year rule in the more narrow field in which we now propose that abolition. The Amendment seeks to deal with that situation. But, based as it is on Section 43 of the 1962 Act, we think that it is framed on too broad a front, and that it does not really deal with the right question. It is too wide because it does far more than is necessary to fill the gap created by the now partial abolition of the four-year rule.
  For example, even in cases where one is dealing with a change in the use of land or buildings, there is no justification for opening such a determination system to verify changes of use made before 21st December, 1963. These changes are immune from enforcement action under the terms of the Bill.
  The Amendment asks the wrong question because the thing which it is appropriate to establish is not whether development was involved at some time in the past. The right question is whether whatever development took place and now exists, or what use is current is immune from enforcement action or not. That is the right question, first, because only if existing development is not immune from enforcement action can it be said to require planning permission in any practical sense. Second, it is the question which the planning authority is likely to be competent to answer. The question posed in the Amendment is very sophisticated. It would involve the planning authority in an investigation into the validity of past planning permission such as takes place on an investigation of title.
  With the abolition of the four-year rule the process of establishing immunity from enforcement action may turn upon a variety of factors, and all these should be catered for. There are other less fundamental difficulties about the Amendment which I need not elaborate.
  808
  I hope that what I have said is sufficient to indicate that we are seized of this problem. Perhaps hon. Members will understand why the draftsman is not yet in a position to let us have an Amendment to consider now.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful for that. Do I understand that it is intended to put this into the Bill later and not merely to deal with it by regulation? Secondly, if it is to be done by means of an application for a certificate to the local authority, if the local authority refuses that certificate, what form of appeal will follow? I assume that there will be some form of appeal and it will not be merely a question of inviting an enforcement notice. Perhaps the Minister has not yet thought out the matter. I would ask that some form of appeal is provided rather than that it should be necessary to go through the enforcement notice procedure.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.45 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 215, in page 86, line 25, after 'and' to insert '(c)'.
  I mentioned in Committee that on one occasion in the House I was teased by the Speaker for making a speech about a missing comma. I was gratified that the Government had to bring in an amending Statutory Instrument to insert the comma. But the Government never learn. They have lost a comma again, and to make sure that they would not lose it again I thought it better to divide the paragraph into two, and then it would not need the comma; we could put a letter in instead. The intention behind the Amendment is to put the matter right.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 216, in page 86, line 37, to leave out '(c)' and insert '(d)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can take at the same time Amendment No. 217— page 86, line 39, leave out first 'in' and insert 'for'—and Amendment No. 220 —page 86, line 43, at end insert:
  'the local authority and the Minister shall secure, so far as may be practicable, to persons

  809
  who were owners or occupiers of property which the authority have acquired as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, an opportunity to obtain their previous respective interests in that property on terms settled with due regard to the price at which such interests were acquired from them'.
  Mr. Page: Amendment No. 216 is a paving Amendment. We seek to amend Section 78(7) of the principal Act so as to provide a system of pre-emptions for those who have been deprived of their property for a certain purpose and that purpose is not to be carried out and the acquiring authority intends to dispose of the property. The meat of these Amendments is in Amendment No. 220. The intention is that there should be an obligation to offer back the property to the owners or occupiers from whom it was taken if the opportunity is present and they require the property back and if the terms are right.
  I am aware that Section 78(7) of the 1962 Act dealt with a very much narrower situation. I have used that Section in order to propose we introduce into the Bill a matter of relief to owners who have been deprived of their property, who have had it taken from them under compulsory powers for a certain purpose for the benefit of the community, and then it is no longer wanted for that purpose. There should be, recognised not only in circulars from the Ministry, but embodied in the law, an obligation on the part of an acquiring authority to return the property to the owners.
  Where property has been taken for a certain purpose for the benefit of the public, the acquiring authority should not seek to make a gain out of inflation during the period for which it has held the property, but should endeavour to restore the property to its owners as if it had not been taken from them. It was taken from them under compulsory powers for the benefit of the community, and, if the community do not want it, it should be restored as if it had never been taken away.
  Mr. MacDermot: The essence of this matter is that it is important to recognise the distinction between land which is bought with the object of re-disposal in order to help a redevelopment or other planning purpose, and land which has been compulsorily acquired for a purpose and is then found to be surplus to requirement and re-disposed of.
  810
  The first class was covered by the old Section 68(l)(a), and will be covered by Clause 24(l)(a), (b) and (c). There is statutory protection for the person whose land is taken to give him the chance to have a property within the redevelopment area. This protection will remain in the Statute and is written into the Statute. Paragraph (d) does not deal with the redevelopment situation which paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) deal with. Land acquired under paragraph (d) and not afterwards required would be the surplus disposal type of case, and this is covered and protected by the well recognised post Crichel Down procedures. Paragraph (d) replaces the provisions under Section 68(1)(b), and that paragraph did not provide for offering the previous owner a chance to acquire the land, or part of it. We are following the previous pattern, and it is founded on the same principle.
  Mr. Allason: The Minister of State tells us that the Government follow the post Crichel Down procedures as if they were entirely satisfactory. He ought to remind the House that the post Crichel Down procedures relate only to agricultural land. Industrial land in my constituency was taken from an owner because it was new town land and thought to be required. It was not required, and the Minister considered the case and refused to offer it back to the owner. I have submitted the case to the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is now considering it. The post-Crichel Down procedure is at the discretion of the Minister. The discretion of the Minister is improperly applied here. The Crichel Down procedure is not a wonderful be-all and end-all and entirely satisfactory. The Minister's discretion is limited to agricultural property, which is to my mind entirely unsatisfactory.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 221, in page 87, leave out lines 4 to 8.
  This paragraph seeks to amend the law in this way. As it stands under the 1962 Act, if an outdoor advertiser is told to remove his site and he can show that it was erected and has been standing since a date prior to 2nd May, 1960, he is entitled to compensation. Paragraph 28 seeks to change that date to 1st August, 1948; in other words, he is entitled to

  811
  compensation only if he can show that it was standing prior to 1st August, 1948.
  I will not go into the details of how those dates are arrived at, and I know that the reason for trying to amend the law in this way is that it is thought not to have been the intention to alter it in 1962. But we are depriving certain owners of outdoor advertising sites of the right to compensation. It is not certain that the intention in 1962 was not to make the date 2nd May, 1960.
  Mr. MacDermot: When advertising control was introduced in the 1947 Act, it was provided that, if people were required to remove an advertisement or discontinue the use of a site which was used for the display of advertisements on the date when the regulations came into force, they should be entitled to compensation. That was in accordance with the general pattern and meant that, if people were to be prevented from doing that which they had previously been able to do, they should be entitled to compensation.
  It was never intended that, if subsequent and later regulations were made, the qualifying date should be advanced every time. This is the accidental result of the fact that the wording used in the 1947 Act was swept up unamended in the 1962 Act, that being a consolidating Measure.
  The effect of the 1962 Act is that, every time regulations are made, the qualifying date is advanced. There is no reason why it should be. Accordingly, the Amendment corrects the position and restores the 1948 date. There is one minor compensating benefit, because it removes the other qualifying date of 7th January, 1947.
  Mr. Graham Page: With that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 222, in page 87, line 8 [Schedule 5], at end insert:
  29. In section 127 (general provisions as to compensation for depreciation under Part VIII), in subsection (2), after the word ' thereof ' there shall be inserted the words ' or under Part V or section 75 of the Act of 1968'.
  No. 224, in line 11 [Schedule 5], after 'V', insert 'or section 75'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 226, in page 87, line 24, at end insert:
  31. The following subsection shall be added to section 146 of the principal Act: —
  '(3) For the purpose of sections 138 to 152 inclusive of this Act the personal representatives of a deceased person, who had not at the time of his death served a notice under section 139 of this Act and who at the time of his death was entitled to an interest qualifying for protection in accordance with section 138 of this Act, shall be deemed to be that person if a member of the family of the deceased is an owner-occupier of the hereditament in respect of which the deceased had an interest qualifying for protection'.
  This new subsection is concerned with planning blight. Under the principal Act, if a person who has served a notice seeking to demand that the local authority acquires his interest because his property has been blighted by planning proposals dies, his personal representatives can step into his shoes and require the authority to carry on with the purchase of the property. There is a small area where a person dies before serving a notice and hardship could be suffered by members of his family.
  6.0 a.m.
  The matter was discussed in the Standing Committee and I think the Minister raised the objection that if one was to limit the option merely to allowing the personal representatives in every case to serve such a notice, the situation would be too wide and possibly open to abuse.
  For that reason we have incorporated an additional qualification that this right can be exercised only by personal representatives where there is a member of the family resident in the family home for at least six months and where he is therefore an owner-occupier under Section 147 of the principal Act. I hope the Minister will now see his way to meet the Amendment.
  Mr. MacDennot: I speak with some diffidence on this subject because I know that the hon. Member has a lot more practical knowledge of this problem than I have. But I see he has written into his Amendment the requirement that the member of the family of the deceased

  813
  who continues to live in the House is an owner-ocsupier of the hereditament.
  Am I right in thinking that that means he is the person who, under the will or intestacy of the deceased, is the person who has become the owner and would be entitled to have the property conveyed to him or her? If this is so, is not the practical answer that by the time in which in the ordinary way that property would vest in that person, and with the vesting operating as I understand it back to the date of the death, the qualifying period of six months would normally be satisfied, or very shortly thereafter be satisfied, and they would be able to exercise the right on their own account?
  I hope I have understood the facts correctly, and if I have it would seem that the Amendment is unnecessary. If when the hon. Gentleman has considered the matter further he still feels there is a mischief which has not been dealt with, then perhaps he will write to me and I will look at it further.
  Mr. Graham Page: I think there is a difficulty here. The Bill as it stands at present gives personal representatives the right to take over the purchase notice if the deceased has served a notice before his death and has become fully qualified. Then it is all right; the personal representatives take over.
  But if he has died before serving the notice, although otherwise qualified, then there are two instances to consider. First, he dies leaving a will and someone is entitled to the property under the will, and the will is eventually proved. Then, as the Minister said, the matter dates back to the date of death. But if he dies intestate there is no continuance of ownership because ownership, until letters of administration are granted, rests with the President of the Probate Division. So I think there is some difficulty on intestacy.
  What we want to cover here are members of the family who are living in the house with him—and I think the use of the owner-occupier phrase at the end of the Amendment was in error—and to give them the benefit of his qualifying months of residence in the house, so that they do not lose the advantage which he nearly lost by not serving notice before he died.
  Mr. MacDermot: I will look at this further.
  Mr. Rossi: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 227, in page 87, line 24, at end to insert:
  31 To section 149 of the principal Act (Meaning of 'owner-occupier' and 'resident owner-occupier') there shall be added the following subsection: —
  '(5) A mortgagee in possession of the interest of an owner-occupier or a resident owner-occupier shall have the same rights under this Part of this Act as his mortgagor would have had had he remained in occupation'.
  This Amendment is intended to assist the mortgagee who has had to enter into possession in order to protect his security. We hope to assist him to realise his security when it has become subject to planning blight. Otherwise he may be left with that property on his hands.
  Mr. MacDermot: We discussed this matter in Committee and I agreed to try to meet the point. That is a complicated matter for drafting and our Amendment is not yet ready. It is our intention to put down an Amendment in another place.
  Mr. Rossi: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 228, in page 87, line 33, at end insert:
  (a) for subsection (1)(a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
  '(a) a structure plan, a local plan or any alteration, repeal or replacement of any such plan, whether before or after the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement has been approved or adopted, or '.
  No. 229, in page 88, line 5, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 230, in line 10, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
  No. 231, in line 39, leave out 'a' and insert ' an enforcement'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 232, in page 89, line 1. to leave out paragraph 34 and to insert:
  34. For section 178 (proceedings for questioning validity of development plans and

  815
  certain orders) there shall be substituted the following section:—
  '178.—(1) If any person aggrieved by a structure plan or local plan or by any alteration, repeal or replacement of any such plan, desires to question the validity of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement on the ground that it is not within the powers conferred by Part I of the Act of 1968, or that any requirement of the said Part I or of any regulations made thereunder has not been complied with in relation to the approval or adoption of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement, he may, within six weeks from the date of the publication of the first notice of the approval or adoption of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement required by regulations under section 11(1) of that Act, make an application to the High Court under this section.
  (2) On any application under this section the High Court:—

  (a) may by interim order wholly or in part suspend the operation of the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant, until the final determination of the proceedings;

  (b) if satisfied that the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement is wholly or to any extent outside the powers conferred by Part I of the Act of 1968, or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by the failure to comply with any requirement of the said Part I or of any regulations made thereunder, may wholly or in part quash the plan, alteration, repeal or replacement, as the case may be, either generally or in so far as it affects any property of the applicant.

  (3) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply to an order under section 153 of this Act or under section 75 of the Act of 1968 as they apply to a structure plan, as if, in subsection (1) of this section, for the reference to the notice therein mentioned, there were substituted a reference to the notice section 154(6) of this Act.
  (4) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall apply, subject to any necessary modifications, to an order under section 168 of this Act as they apply to a structure plan.'.
  This is largely a redrafting Amendment to remove possible ambiguities. I can explain further if the House requires.
  Mr. Graham Page: Even at this hour I think this requires a little further explanation. Reference is made to
  "… the first notice of the approval or adoption of the plan …"
  I have found no reference elsewhere in the Bill to a first or second or any other numbered notice. The approval, of course, would be the case of the Minister approving a structure plan and adoption
  816
  would be the case of the local planning authority adopting a local plan.
  As certain very important matters have to be dated from that—the Amendment refers also to a period of six weeks from the date of publication of the first notice —for certain action to be taken, it is important to understand what is meant by
  "… the date … of the first notice of the approval or adoption of the plan …"
  It is a little puzzling.
  Mr. MacDermot: There is now a power to approve any part of the plan. Consequently, one can get the first notice of approval which would only approve part of the plan and subsequent notices approving subsequent parts. This Amendment makes it clear that the first notice is the operative one.
  Mr. Graham Page: This is giving the person aggrieved the right to do something about that feeling. The first notice relating to the structure plan may not relate to his area. If the right of appeal is to be dated from then, he will be in difficulty.
  Mr. MacDermot: I will look into that point and see whether any rewording is necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 233, in page 89, line 17, leave out ' a' and insert 'an enforcement'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 234, in page 90, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).
  Paragraph 42(c) substitutes a new subsection in Section 199 of the 1962 Act. It deals with the position of the Crown under the Bill. The Crown is free, as I understand it, from any enforcement notices, although partially subject to planning control. When I speak of the Crown, I am not merely talking about what one might call the "Buckingham Palace Crown". This term covers Crown Estates, and the Commissioners for the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, but it is also any Government Department or any trustee for a Government Department. I do not think that covers nationalised industries, but the House ought to be told to what extent the Crown becomes subject to this Act, or to what extent the Crown in the form

  817
  of Government Departments, will accept the discipline of the Act.
  Government Departments are undoubtedly subject to purchase notices if they are the appropriate authority. They are also subject, earlier in the Bill, to planning inquiry commissions. Why should they not also be subject to the ordinary process of enforcement notices? It seems that they should no longer be in this privileged position with regard to town planning.
  Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman will realise that in subsection (3) of Section 199 of the 1962 Act, there are certain provisions which do not bind the Crown in relation to enforcement notices, because the Crown is not normally bound by general planning legislation. In this Bill paragraph 13 of the Schedule has a similar provision. Paragraph 42(c) of the Schedule puts the Crown not in any preferential position, but in the same position as any other developer who has lawfully carried out development. If at the time when the development was carried out, it was developed on Crown lands, then should the land subsequently change hands, which is the point of the provision here, it would be quite wrong to try to use an enforcement notice. It would be quite wrong to treat the Crown worse than any other developer.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 235, in page 90, line 20, after 'No', insert 'enforcement'.
  No. 236, in line 4, leave out 'a' and insert' an enforcement'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 237, in page 91, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
  This Amendment deals with paragraph 46(b) and makes some new provisions with regard to rights of entry. Sub-paragraph 1A authorises persons appointed by the Minister to enter any building. This did not exist in the 1962 Act. This is restricted to occasions only connected with a proposal, but I do not know how the person whose property is entered knows that there is a proposal, or what right the person has to enter. The Bill makes no provision for formal proposals. Sub-paragraph 1A is too vague
  818
  for testing at any time the validity of the entry.
  Sub-paragraph 1B gives a similar power to that existing in the 1962 Act when a building preservation order has been made. I suppose that it is reasonable, now that the building preservation order procedure has been abolished, that it should apply to listed buildings, but I rather doubt whether 1B is necessary. There is undoubtedly an extension of powere here to enter buildings and it is not extended in a definite way, but left rather vague. This is a probing Amendment to get a better explanation from the Minister as to why the provision is necessary.
  6.15 a.m.
  Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Gentleman's first point is how, normally, a person would know whether there is a question when listing or de-listing might be relevant. In the normal way, letters are sent, or the owner is seen. One relies on the co-operation of the owner when any function is to be carried out on listing or de-listing. Now, the Minister has increased responsibility under the Bill and it will be necessary in rare cases of non-co-operation to have the right of entry on to surrounding ground. This is restricted to the Minister because this is the Minister's function, and not that of the local authority—
  Mr. Graham Page: That is dependent on a proposal existing. I was complaining that nowhere in the Act is "proposal" defined. The person entering land might say "The Minister proposed it to me", or "I proposed it to the Minister. I know we have not proposed it to the owner of the land." Surely there will be some definition of "proposal".
  Mr. Skeffington: Normally, communication is by writing or interview. Sub-paragraph 1B deals with offences under Part 5 and is more concerned with the planning authority, who decide whether there should be a prosecution for contravention of Clause 33. As the Minister has reserve powers, it is necessary to cover his position and that is what 1B does.
  Mr. Page: On that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 238 in page 92, line 29, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
  Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 239, in page 94, leave out lines 20 to 28.
  This paragraph deals with the Land Commission and gives it extra power. The Minister started a little debate on the Commission earlier and now he can enlarge on it if he wishes. We had to amend the paragraph in Committee because it made nonsense. We shall have to amend it again because it still makes nonsense. We would have amended it if it had made sense. It is still wrong. There is a reference to Section 5(9) of the Bill, but this is not now in the Bill, so the Clause is still a nonsense. Paragraph 58 of the Schedule is not only objectionable because it is nonsense, but because of its contents. But then everything connected with the Land Commission is nonsense and objectionable, so this is not surprising.
  The point is that Section 6(3) of the Land Commission Act, 1967, gave certain conditions precedent for compulsory purchase of land by the Land Commission. Section 6(3)(b) states that
  "in the current development plan, or in any proposals submitted to the planning Minister by a local planning authority for altering or adding to that plan, the land is defined or otherwise indicated in any such manner, or is allocated for purposes of any such description, as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection."
  First, the Land Commission makes a compulsory purchase order—this is important when considering the further powers given to it—without approval by the Minister, unless objection is made to it; secondly, it makes a compulsory purchase order, if objection is received, with the approval of the Minister; and, thirdly, it can make a compulsory purchase order under the expediting procedure under Section 8 of the 1967 Act when the owner, to put it vulgarly, has not got a cat in hell's chance of resisting it.
  If we alter Section 6(3)(b) of the 1967 Act, as is desired under paragraph 58, we are giving the Land Commission power to exercise compulsory purchase powers on the basis of a draft local
  820
  plan which has not received approval or been adopted by the local authority and which is still not a complete plan. We have been denied the right to use that plan for purchase notice purposes, and I see no reason why the Land Commission should be given this privileged position. I hope that paragraph 58 will be removed from the Bill. The Land Commission will have the very extensive powers which it already has without increasing those powers any further.
  Mr. MacDermot: I will resist the temptation to widen the scope of the debate. I will answer the point of the Amendment by saying that it is misconceived. It is incorrect to say that this paragraph widens the scope or powers of the Land Commission to acquire land. All that it does is to apply the existing provisions to the new local plan procedure. Under existing provisions the Land Commission has the power to acquire land
  "in the current development plan, or in any proposals submitted to the planning Minister by a local planning authority for altering or adding to the plan …"
  It already has the power to acquire at the deposit stage; that is, at the time when the formal proposal is submitted to the Minister and before it has been approved. That is all that we are doing under the local plan procedure.
  At present we can get a proposal to amend the plan from the existing development plan. From the time that the proposals are submitted there is power. This is comparable to the stage when the local plan is submitted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 240, in line 34, after 'is', insert:
  'the subject of a building presentation notice as defined by section 41 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 or is'.
  Apart from pointing out that the word "presentation" should read "preservation", I can move the Amendment formally.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 241, in page 95, line 4, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
  Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move Amendment No. 243, in line 21, at end insert:
  "except paragraph (b) of subsection (4) and so much of subsection (5) as empowers the Minister to grant planning permission, discharge any condition or limitation or determine any purpose for which land may be used'.
  The Amendment corrects the Schedule which, as originally presented, applied in Clause 14(2) to (5) the provisions of Section 46(2) to (5) of the 1962 Act, in relation to the enforcement procedures which are necessary in connection with the Civic Amenities Act. This is too wide and the Amendment limits the provision to a certain extent.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 244, in page 98, line 12, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.—[Mr. Skeffington.]
  Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  6.28 a.m.
  Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House: declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill, ostensibly for the introduction of satisfactory reforms in the town and country planning procedures of local councils, which, unrelated to those procedures, gives dictatorial power to a Government department, greater than has ever been given previously, even in times of war, to seize property."
  Even at this late hour it is appropriate that I should comment on our proceedings. As I said when we began the Report stage, this is a non-controversial Measure in the party political sense. On the other hand, it is of considerable importance. In a normal Session under a normal Government it would be regarded as perhaps the major Bill to come before Parliament in the Session, for although it is non-controversial in one sense, it affects a large number of people and a great many interests. I regret, therefore, that in its later stages we have had to discuss the Measure in rather less depth than we might have wished.
  I must, at the outset, explain one matter lest it be misunderstood why my hon. Friends and I have, in the light of
  822
  what I have said, tabled Amendments suggesting either "That the Question be not put forthwith" or:
  "That this House declines to give a Third Reading to a Bill, ostensibly for the introduction of satisfactory reforms in the town and country planning procedures of local councils, which, unrelated to those procedures, gives dictatorial power to a Government department, greater than has ever been given previously, even in times of war, to seize property."
  It is a matter of some regret to us, though we make no complaint of the Chair in this regard—to do so would be improper and unfair—that we did not have an opportunity on Report to comment on the provisions of Clause 25(1). As the Bill now stands, that gives to the Ministry of Public Building and Works a power to
  "acquire compulsorily any land necessary for the public service."
  This is a quite extraordinary provision to include in a Measure of this kind. We would certainly wish that in another place action should be taken to ensure that that power is strictly limited.
  I cannot, from my own experience in the Ministry of Public Building and Works, see any reason why that Ministry should be given any power at all in this regard. Certainly it should not be more than the power which any other Government Department already possesses. I can see that there may be cases in which it would be a matter of convenience that the Ministry of Public Building and Works should in effect act as agent of a Government Department which already has compulsory purchase powers.
  As Minister myself, I found it of enormous benefit that the Ministry did not have any compulsory purchase powers at all. That Ministry has to deal with a great number of property acquisitions of one kind and another in the course of a year, not only in civil matters, but also because it has a great deal of work to do for the Defence Department. It really does not need any compulsory purchase powers.
  One of the reasons why it has done so well is that the public can regard it as the one Government Department which does not wield the big stick; it is looked upon as the one Department of the Government which can deal across the table in a free market. Therefore, there is in negotiations none of the feeling that there is a threat of compulsory

  823
  purchase behind the activities of that Ministry. So people deal freely with it, and the great strength of the Ministry at the moment in the market is that it has the advantage which comes from being someone who is good for the money—that is, of course, as long as our money remains good for anything. However, as things stand, people know that when they deal with the Ministry of Public Building and Works they deal in a free market, without the threat of compulsory acquisition, and that they will get a fair deal and will get a fair price in the ordinary course of negotiations.
  In my view, it would be far better to leave it like that, but certainly it cannot be right to give any Government Department the power which is given by Clause 25(1)—power to
  "acquire compulsorily any land necessary for the public service."
  There may be questions, in practice, how far that will be interpreted, but as the words stand they are far too wide, and I hope we shall have an assurance from the Minister of State that this will be dealt with in another place.
  We have had to move our Amendment in order to raise this issue. We of course do not wish to give the impression that we are totally opposed to this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, and as I said at the beginning of the Report proceedings, we think there is much that is good in the Bill, and from its general principles we do not dissent. We all know there has to be some amendment of the law of town and country planning to improve our development plan procedures and to provide rights to the public to express their views on these matters. With all that we are in agreement.
  What worries us is that a major Bill of this kind has had to be so squeezed into the Government's already overcrowded legislative programme. I think everyone who has attended the debates which we have had on Report will agree that although we are still sitting at a fairly late hour—or fairly early hour, whichever way one likes to look at it— not a moment has been wasted. My hon. Friends, as expeditiously as they could, have moved a large number of Amendments, and have also discussed, as expeditiously as humanly possible, the very
  824
  large number of Government Amendments. We found ourselves faced with 62 pages of new Clauses and Amendments, and we were asked to deal with them in one day and a little period of time after 10 o'clock at night. It is not sufficient but we have done our best.
  The Government have introduced a great number of Amendments, many of which we have accepted, and we have introduced a great number, many of which they have accepted, and we have improved the Bill, but there remains a real danger that we have not examined it with all the necessary care. We must accept that we send it to another place with a great deal to be done by a number of legislators, who, judging from Press reports of their proceedings, feel somewhat resentful about the enormous burden now being cast upon them to tidy up legislation.
  However, I congratulate the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which they have conducted our proceedings. We have nothing but praise for the way in which they have carried the heavy burden which falls upon Ministers who have to deal with all the details of a major Bill of this kind, which is not only important to the subject but raises immense and complicated legal, administrative and other difficulties.
  6.37 a.m.
  Mr. Lubbock: May I congratulate hon. Members opposite on their tour de force in replying so capably to the Amendments moved during the night? I too do not consider it satisfactory to have dealt with these Amendments during the night. I think the extra time on Report would have been better. But that is all past now and I wish the Bill every success.
  6.38 a.m.
  Mr. MacDermot: I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for their kind remarks about me and the Parliamentary Secretary, and I add my own thanks for the great assistance which I have had from the Parliamentary Secretary. We have had some very interesting debates, and I thank hon. Members opposite for their serious and helpful contributions. I have no doubt that they have greatly

  825
  improved the Bill. I must mention in particular the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who has an unparalleled knowledge of the details of this law. He has gone through the Bill with the greatest care and has never wasted time but has always had something valuable to say. I am certain that he has helped considerably to improve the Bill.
  I hope that we can end on a friendly note and that hon. Members will not pursue their somewhat violently worded Amendment. I would have been glad to discuss the Amendment by which they proposed to deal with what they thought were the excessive powers of compulsory purchase to be given to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's former Ministry, the Ministry of Public Building and Works. If we had accepted it, as, in a Machiavellian spirit, we might have done, we should have enlarged the powers beyond those already in the Bill, and would, among other things, have given the Ministry the power to acquire land for motorways—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss Amendments now.
  Mr. MacDennot: That is a further reason why I cannot go into these matters, but we can discuss what is in the Bill. I reject the allegation that this gives dictatorial powers to a Government Department. I know what has given rise to this. First, I suppose it is a wish in what has been such a friendly and non-controversial debate to try to extract some party political point to make at the end of the day. Secondly, there is the fact that the wording that has been used and is in the Bill, is taken from an ancient Statute, Section 2 of the Commissioners of Works Act, 1852. This is the phrase which defines the existing power of that Minister to acquire land by agreement. He may acquire land necessary for the public service.
  All that is being done is to equate his powers of compulsory purchase with his powers of agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Hon. Members ooh and ah, but they know that if they followed what was said in Committee these words, which to us may sound surprisingly wide, are not the kind of words a modern draftsman would use in a modern
  826
  Statute. They have in fact been construed extremely narrowly and on a number of occasions, as no doubt the right hon. and learned Member knows from experience in the Department, advice has been taken, including the advice of the Law Officers, on the construction of these words. As a result, construction and practice in relation to them has been built up which is far narrower than the words would imply, and I think far narrower than any other general wording which would be likely to be devised and used today.
  If we are to reject this wording as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, I fear that what would be needed would be an extremely lengthy definition of the different purposes and different bodies for which the Ministry of Public Building and Works acquires land. It would also be a provision which would constantly need to be amended as new organisations come into existence and existing ones are renamed. Simply because of the sheer complication of trying to draft a substituted provision we have followed the existing wording of the 1852 Act. It is a wording which is narrowly confined to the purposes for which the Ministry of Public Building and Works acquires land for other bodies.
  Mr. Rippon: I would not want the hon. and learned Gentleman to be under any misunderstanding. This is not an attempt at the last minute to inject a party political point. We are very much concerned that powers to acquire land compulsorily should be given to a Government Department which has managed powers to acquire by agreement for over a century. If what the Minister of State says is true, and I do not dissent from it—that it will require a lengthy Clause to define precisely what this Ministry is to be given—I hope that in another place either that will be insisted upon or this Clause will be rejected. Unless the Minister of State can give a more definite assurance than he seems able to give at the moment that the Government will spell out very strictly the reasons why the Ministry of Public Building and Works needs compulsory powers, we shall certainly divide on this issue.
  Mr. MacDermot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his view. He thinks the Ministry

  827
  of Public Building and Works would be better off without powers of compulsory purchase. Why confine that to the Ministry of Public Building and Works? Perhaps he would like all public authorities to have to acquire by agreement, in which case they would require a bottomless purse, which I have no doubt he might think cynically that they have because they have the taxpayers behind them. Precisely because of this it is found necessary and right that public bodies and departments should have powers of compulsory purchase so that they cannot be held to ransom in the way that can happen where someone knows something is required for a Ministry or a public body and the owner of the land can hold out for an extortionate price.
  The right hon. Gentleman must know from his own experience that in recent years the Ministry of Public Building and Works has been acquiring large office buildings in the centre of London. They had remained empty for a long time and the negotiations, for the Ministry to acquire them, were long when it did not have powers of compulsory purchase and was acquiring by agreement. From that, it is an obvious inference that it was necessary to hold out for a very long time so that a reasonable agreement could be reached on price.
  The right hon. Gentleman will also know that, when an acquiring authority has powers of compulsory purchase, it is possible to bring the property owner to the point where he is prepared to sell at the true market price at a much earlier
  stage. These powers need to be used seldom, but they bring a much healthier atmosphere to the negotiations.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that people welcome the absence of compulsory powers when they are dealing with that Ministry because they have a completely free market. In his sense of the completely free market, I agree that they have it; and I can well understand that they welcome it. However, I cannot agree that it is a situation which should be perpetuated or continued. We take the view that clearly that Ministry should have powers of compulsory purchase.
  What is important is that we do not, in giving the powers of compulsory purchase, extend its powers of acquisition beyond the sphere in which at the moment it can acquire by agreement. It is thought that any attempt to redraft these powers with some other formula would be found in practice to lead to that extension, and this is confirmed by the Amendment tabled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
  I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to look, to examine, and to see whether it is possible to find any other form of words which would not give rise to such powers. I do not give any undertaking that we will table an Amendment, because we must see whether it is possible to find a suitable formula.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 115.

  Division No. 163.]

  AYES

  [6.48 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Grant, Anthony

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempttead)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Higgine, Terence L.

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hordem, Peter

  Silvester, Frederick

  Clegg, Walter

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Cooke, Robert

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Temple, John M.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Murton, Oscar

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Eden, Sir John

  Peyton, John

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Archer, Peter

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Blackburn, F.

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Booth, Albert

  Chapman, Donald

  Beaney, Alan

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Coe, Denis

  Bence, Cyril

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Coleman, Donald

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hoy, James

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrlngton)

  Hunter, Adam

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Dempcey, James

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Dewar, Donald

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-HuH, W.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Lee, John (Reading)

  pentland, Norman

  Dickens, James

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Dolg, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lubbock, Eric

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  McBride, Neil

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)

  Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  MacColl, James

  Rose, Paul

  Eadie, Alex

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Ellis, John

  McGuire, Michael

  Skefflngton, Arthur

  English, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor (RuthergMn)

  Slater, Joseph

  Enttals, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Small, William

  Evans, loan L. (Birmrh'm, Yardley)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Taverne, Dick

  Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tinn, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marquand, David

  Urwin, T. W.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mendetson, J. J.

  Vartey, Eric G.

  Forrester, John

  Miltan, Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Moyle, Roland

  Wallace, George

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Murray, Albert

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Newens, Stan

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Hamling, William

  Ogden, Eric

  Woof, Robert

  Hannan, William

  O'Malley, Brian

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orbach, Maurice

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Haseldine, Norman

  Orme, Stanley

  Helter, Eric S.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Harry Gourlay and Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Homer, John

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading) and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  SUB-POST OFFICES (ANTI-BANDIT SCREENS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]
  6.56 a.m.
  Mr. Bernard Weatherill: After such a long night, I am pleased to have this opportunity of raising the question of protection of sub-postmasters. In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall do my best not to keep the House and you, Mr. Speaker, too long.
  The purpose of the debate is to ask whether the Postmaster-General will move rather further than he has in helping to protect sub-postmasters in crime-prone areas from the hazards which they face by providing, free of charge, anti-bandit screens. I am well aware that sub-postmasters are employed on an agency basis and that one of the conditions of their employment is that they
  "must provide, at their own expense, such reasonable office accommodation and fittings
  830
  as the Department may require for carrying out the work of their office."
  But these regulations, I understand, were laid down many years ago at a time when sub-postmasters were required to carry very much less, and much less valuable, stock than they do today.
  Today, a typical sub-post office has in terms of turnover of post office and Government business anything up to £500,000 a year. I have checked the stock of one of the post offices in my constituency, and I have a list of a number of sub-post offices in the Greater London Area. It would perhaps be worth drawing attention to the amount of stock these post offices have to carry these days. They vary in terms of postal orders from about £500 in Romford to over £4,000 in Southall, and in terms of National Insurance stamps, from £530 in Harrow to £18,000 in Greenford. In terms of cash in order to pay National Insurance benefits, anything up to £1,500 would be the average amount they would be required to carry.
  These records show that the average urban post office carries anything up to 30 different categories of insurance stamps. When one realises that a single National Insurance stamp for a Class I contributor is worth 58s. 2d., it is not difficult to imagine the value of the stock in an average sub-post office. I quote

  831
  these details simply to show how radically the situation has changed in recent years, and the amount of valuable and disposable stock which is at risk in the average sub-post office.
  The number and frequency of attacks in recent years have been quite frightening. In 1966 a counter clerk in Leeds was murdered, and since that time there have been on average two attacks every week on sub-post office personnel. A constituent of mine, Mr. Ratcliffe, came to see me recently and left with me a Post Office circular of 3rd April. On the front page are listed the number and the amounts of awards for bravery which have been awarded to the staff. I quote very briefly from it. A sub-postmistress, £50; another sub-postmistress £30; for resourceful conduct on the occasion of a robbery, £10, and so on. The figures speak for themselves.
  There is hardly an hon. Member of this House who has not had at least one incident in his constituency, and in the London area many of us have had several. In the London postal area alone in the last year there have been 37 robberies.
  On 25th April a number of Questions were put down for the Postmaster-General, including one from me, in which I asked:
  "if in view of the increasing number of attacks on sub-post offices, he will ensure that protective screens are made available free of charge to sub-postmasters with offices in officially designated crime prone areas?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 456.]
  Subsequently a Motion was put on the Order Paper which was based on this Question and which in the interests of brevity I will not quote, but it attracted no fewer than 40 signatures.
  I fully appreciate that the Postmaster-General has offered a grant of £50 towards the cost of anti-bandit screens for sub-postmasters in "crime prone areas," and he has said that he will give them, in addition, an interest-free loan over a five-year period to cover the balance of the cost. I am also aware that he maintains that the National Federation of Sub-postmasters has accepted this offer. But, with respect, I understand that this is not exactly so. I have no wish to go into details of the dispute which the
  832
  Federation has with the Postmaster-General about this statement, but at the conference in Jersey last week the deputy secretary of the Federation gave his version of the negotiations, and I am sure that the Postmaster-General will be aware of what he said.
  I understand that standard kits cost in the region of £100 each, possibly less if a bulk order is placed. The Postmaster-General has already promised a £50 grant. Assuming 10,000 kits for sub-post offices in crime-prone areas, the total extra cost to the Postmaster-General's Department would be about half a million pounds—perhaps less than that if one takes into account the interest-free loan which has also been promised.
  I well understand and appreciate the absolute need for a cut in Government expenditure, but I suggest that this is one area in which there is an overwhelming case for spending a little more. After all, a little earlier last night the House approved an increase in expenditure by the Gas Board of £1,200 million, and against that the half a million pounds I am asking for is almost a petty cash figure. What is more, I believe that this amount would be quickly recouped.
  We all know, and it is an unhappy fact, that crime is on the increase, and so are the attacks on sub-post offices. These offices are a vital part of the service to the public. I appreciate that they are in a unique position in that they are a half private enterprise operation and half Government service, but they are responsible for 55 per cent. of all Post Office over-the-counter sales and are a most important and vital as well as cheap part of the Post Office service.
  Theirs is a very reasonable request. It is that the Postmaster-General provides protection not only for them but for his own stock. They are not asking for a contribution towards the installation of anti-bandit screens but merely for the provision of the screens themselves free of charge.
  Another constituent of mine, a Mr. Lipman, had this to say in a recent letter:
  "This newly designed anti-bandit screen has now been offered to us provided we pay some of the purchase price and all of the installation costs. This is like asking a soldier to provide his own anti-tank devices or a policeman to provide his own truncheon. The

  833
  Postmaster-General has denied that he has any moral responsibility to provide further protection for those people conducting his business."
  I believe that the last sentence is not wholly true.
  In reply to a Written Question on Tuesday, the Postmaster-General said that he was reviewing the Post Office's policy on this matter. That is very encouraging news, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to say a little more this morning. I am sure that it is his wish not only to protect the Government's money and his Department's property, but also the lives and limbs of sub-postmasters and their staffs, who do such a splendid and important job not only for his Department, but for the public.
  7.8 a.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill). Only yesterday, I received letters from two sub-postmistresses who are grateful for the proffered assistance from the Post Office, but who both say that considerable structural alterations are necessary to their post office counters before the new screens can be fitted. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General has listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said and that he will do everything that he can to help these gallant people.
  7.9 a.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): The matter we are debating this morning is one of grave public interest. I share the concern expressed by both hon. Members opposite. In recent years, the country as a whole has seen a regrettable increase of violent crime in our cities and towns.
  As hon. Members know, every post office, however small, must have a certain amount of cash on hand to carry out its job, and this is, of course, the reason why we have come to share a heavy part of the burden caused by this national increase in violent crime. To help combat this, we have recently appointed a senior police officer to re-examine all our precautions over the full range of our activities.
  I should now like to give the House a break-down of the present situation and
  834
  of the steps being taken to meet it. We are this morning dealing with those of our post offices which are classed as scale payment sub-offices. These are the offices where the postmaster is not a civil servant, but is employed on an agency basis. We do not pay him a fixed salary or wage. Instead, he is rewarded on a scale based largely on the amount of business which his office transacts. In return, he is responsible for providing suitable premises, for engaging and paying any extra staff that are required, for providing a counter and other equipment necessary to run the office, and for giving protection to Post Office cash and stock. The money he is paid—on a scale negotiated with the Federation of Sub-Postmasters—specifically takes account of these responsibilities.
  I stress this fact particularly as I believe it has not always been clear to hon. Members during the lobbying to which they have been subjected recently by enthusiastic local branches of the Federation. The Post Office has given sub-postmasters considerable extra help in the past in meeting their responsibilities. But responsibility for counter equipment and for security remains a part of their conditions of service—which they accept on appointment and in relation to which they are rewarded.
  By far the largest number of our post offices come in this scale payment category.
  Mr. Reginald Eyre: While listing these responsibilities, would the hon. Gentleman say whether, supposing there was a theft of £1,000 from a sub-office, the Post Office would suffer the cost of that loss or the sub-postmaster? If the Post Office suffers the loss, would it not be cheaper for the Post Office to provide the anti-bandit screens?
  Mr. Slater: That is a form of interjection which does not match the position which I am trying to explain to the House. I am explaining what the terms of their appointment are. They are responsible for the money, the safes, and everything else in their possession.
  I was saying that by far the largest number of our post offices come into the scale payment category, 23,127 out of

  835
  24,906 to be precise. And altogether they carry out some 50 per cent. of our counter transactions. The hon. Member put it at 55 per cent., but we put it at 50 per cent. The remaining offices are the bigger offices staffed by civil servants.
  If I may give some statistics, there were 106 bandit attacks on scale payment offices in the past financial year as compared with 87 in the year before that. Fortunately in only 10 attacks was there any serious injury. I must also stress that a large proportion of the attacks were not successful or else resulted in very small loss, due either to the intelligence and bravery of sub-postmasters and their staff or else to the effectiveness of the security devices provided.
  Nevertheless I must stress to the House the seriousness of what we confront. Sub-postmasters have to face ruthless criminals, who are apparently quite prepared to use firearms, ammonia and physical violence to overcome sub-postmasters and their staffs. Hon. Members ask— and they are right to ask—what the Post Office is doing to help sub-postmasters who are placed in this predicament.
  The Post Office has in fact already spent £500,000 on various security devices in sub-post offices. The House will I feel sure not wish me to describe those of them whose effectiveness depends on concealment, but I would like to mention alarm bells. As I have said, we have over 23,000 sub-post offices altogether, and about 10,000 of these in the most crime-prone areas have been provided with these special bandit alarms.
  It is interesting to note that 85 per cent. of the 106 attacks last year occurred at offices provided with bandit alarms and that in only four instances was the attack pressed home after the bandit alarm had been operated. This is not the whole story of course; sometimes the attack was so sudden that there was no time to sound the alarm at all, or it was sounded too late to be fully effective. Nevertheless, this alarm has played a major part in protecting our staff against injury.
  In a rather different field of security, safes have been anchored to prevent removal by burglars and many of them have been girdled with special alarm devices.
  836
  To enhance co-operation between the Post Office and sub-postmasters in meeting these security problems, we have a joint committee comprising representatives from our Security Section and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. This committee meets regularly to exchange freely their views on sub-post office security in the light of changing crime trends.
  It was at one of these meetings that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters asked the Post Office to look into the possibility of developing an anti-bandit screen for sub-post office counters, made from force-resisting materials which could be mass produced to keep the usual high costs of such sophisticated barriers as low as possible. Therefore the Post Office took action.
  Post Office engineers, with the advice of crime prevention experts, set out to design such a screen. Having designed and tested this effective protection for sub-postmasters and their assistants, we then had to decide how to make the screens available to any sub-postmaster who wished to have one and, at the same time, provide particular assistance to sub-postmasters in the crime-prone areas. These are mainly the urban areas, where the great majority of bandit attacks have occurred and where there are about 10,000 sub-offices. Provision of screens in these areas will provide protection where it is needed most.
  The scheme upon which we decided, after lengthy discussions with the Federation of Sub-Postmasters, was that of inviting all sub-postmasters to give us a provisional order for a screen, based upon our estimates of the likely cost, and, as an encouragement to sub-postmasters in the crime-prone areas, to offer them a contribution of £50 towards that cost.
  Additionally, we offered all sub-postmasters an interest-free loan—to be repaid within five years—to cover the costs falling on them. To most sub-postmasters, the cost would under these proposals amount to no more than a few shillings a week. In the light of the number of individual orders received, the Post Office intended to place bulk orders for the parts and make arrangements for them to be delivered to meet the requirements of each sub-postmaster.

  837
  The sub-postmaster's task will be to erect the screen himself or get a shop-fitter to do it for him. The cost of the scheme to the Post Office—over and above development and administration costs—will depend on the number of sub-postmasters in the crime-prone areas who accept the offer. If all 10,000 in the crime-prone areas do so, and we hope they will, the cost to us under this scheme will be £500,000.
  Newly appointed sub-postmasters in the crime-prone areas will need to start off with good counter protection and we shall insist they do so at the outset. Where a new sub-postmaster is taking over an office which has already received a £50 grant a further grant will not be made; he would probably buy the screen from the outgoing tenant. Where the office had not received a grant the incoming sub-postmaster would be entitled to it. This arrangement would benefit existing sub-postmasters by keeping up second-hand prices.
  The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters accepted the scheme subject to further negotiation on the financial aspect and has since been pressing us to bear the whole cost. Because of this, sub-postmasters in some areas have apparently been persuaded not to complete the provisional order, despite the assurance we gave that no one who buys the screen at the outset of the scheme will be at a financial disadvantage if, say, within the next five years the basis of the scheme should be changed.
  For our part, we have pressed ahead with the job of getting tenders for the bulk supply of the necessary components and we hope that we may get the first supplies shortly.
  In devising this scheme we had on the one hand to take account of sub-postmasters, conditions of service which I described earlier in my speech. I repeat the salient points. Sub-postmasters are agents; they are not direct employees of the Post Office. Their terms of appointment make them specifically responsible for providing adequate safeguards for Post Office cash and stock. Their emoluments take these facts into account.
  To put it another way, sub-postmasters own their businesses and improvements made to the premises accrue to them. When one of the screens we have designed has been installed, it will be the
  838
  property of the sub-postmaster, and any second-hand price will go to him if he sells his business.
  On the other hand, the Post Office is very deeply concerned in this situation, both as regards helping to protect its own cash and stock and as regards the welfare and protection of sub-postmasters and their staff. The earlier assistance which I have described stems from this. This too is the reason why we have designed the screen now under discussion; why we are looking after its manufacture and distribution, and why we have made the offer of financial assistance whose principal features is the outright offer of £50 covering the 10,000 sub-postmasters in crime-prone areas, supplemented by interest-free loans for costs other than this.
  These terms are to my mind fair and reasonable, having regard to sub-postmasters' responsibilities and conditions of appointment. £50 may not sound a great deal, but it adds up to a lot when multiplied by 10,000, and any improvement in what we are proposing to pay would be expensive in proportion. Our scheme is of course a compromise. It recognises that both the individual sub-postmaster and the Department have responsibilities in combating crime against the scale payment office.
  As with any financial compromise there is bound to be debate as to whether the sum selected is correct. My right hon. Friend is certainly not heedless of the strong representations he has received from Members on both sides of the House. He is interested in this debate, and the observations made by the hon. Gentleman. In the interests of the sub-postmasters in his constituency and all others, he is reviewing this matter. Meanwhile, I hope I have been able to show tonight that the course we have pursued has at least been logical, and not unworthy.
  Ever since I went to the Department we have been introducing methods of crime prevention, attempting to abate this trend. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend will give every consideration to what he has said.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Seven o'clock a.m.

SCOTLAND
  Housing (Glasgow)
  Housing (Glasgow)
  Glasgow Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital (Waiting List)
  Glasgow Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital (Waiting List)
  Rents
  Rents
  Aluminium Smelter, Moray Firth Area
  Aluminium Smelter, Moray Firth Area
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Scottish Office Civil Servants (Transport Cost)
  Scottish Office Civil Servants (Transport Cost)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Prescriptions (Purchase Tax)
  Prescriptions (Purchase Tax)
  Fee-Paying and Selective Schools
  Fee-Paying and Selective Schools
  Borders (Expansion Plan)
  Borders (Expansion Plan)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Heavy Water Plant
  Heavy Water Plant
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
  North of Scotland, Orkney and Shetlands Shipping Co. Ltd. (Proposed Subsidy)
  North of Scotland, Orkney and Shetlands Shipping Co. Ltd. (Proposed Subsidy)
  Canadian Teaching Appointments
  Canadian Teaching Appointments
  Teachers' Action Groups
  Teachers' Action Groups
  Students of Optics (Degree Course)
  Students of Optics (Degree Course)
  Mortgages (Agricultural and Horticultural Dwellings)
  Mortgages (Agricultural and Horticultural Dwellings)
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Senior Registrars (Training in Rheumatology)
  Senior Registrars (Training in Rheumatology)
  Scottish Economic Planning Council
  Scottish Economic Planning Council
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Grants)
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Grants)
  Unregistered Teachers
  Unregistered Teachers
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Working Group on Population
  Working Group on Population
  A94 Road (Stonehaven-Perth)
  A94 Road (Stonehaven-Perth)
  Sugar Beet, Cupar
  Sugar Beet, Cupar
  Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
  Agricultural Buildings (Rating)
  Local Authority Projects (Deferment)
  Local Authority Projects (Deferment)
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Teachers (Technical Subjects)
  Teachers (Technical Subjects)
  Selective Employment Tax (Tourist Industry)
  Selective Employment Tax (Tourist Industry)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Agriculture (Import Saving)
  Agriculture (Import Saving)
  Local Authority Meetings
  Local Authority Meetings
BOARD OF TRADE
  North-East Development Council (Publicity)
  North-East Development Council (Publicity)
  Vacant Advance Factories (Aberdeen)
  Vacant Advance Factories (Aberdeen)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Rationalisation of Industry)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Rationalisation of Industry)
  Fuel Supply Companies (Voluntary Undertakings)
  Fuel Supply Companies (Voluntary Undertakings)
  Hong Kong (Balance of Trade)
  Hong Kong (Balance of Trade)
  Scottish Manufactured Goods
  Scottish Manufactured Goods
  Foreign Banking Companies
  Foreign Banking Companies
  United States Companies, Britain (Employees)
  United States Companies, Britain (Employees)
  Board of Trade Grants
  Board of Trade Grants
  Aluminium Smelter Project
  Aluminium Smelter Project
  Fruit (Import Duties and Restrictions)
  Fruit (Import Duties and Restrictions)
  E.F.T.A. (Norwegian Complaints)
  E.F.T.A. (Norwegian Complaints)
  Consultancy Services (Subsidy)
  Consultancy Services (Subsidy)
AVIATION
  Scotland (Overseas Communications)
  Scotland (Overseas Communications)
  United Arab Republic (Agreement)
  United Arab Republic (Agreement)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  N.A.T.O. Force (United Kingdom Contribution)
  N.A.T.O. Force (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Army and Air Force Units (Transfer to Commonwealth Countries)
  Army and Air Force Units (Transfer to Commonwealth Countries)
  Portable Resuscitator
  Portable Resuscitator
  Mobile Laboratory Pathogen Unit, Porton
  Mobile Laboratory Pathogen Unit, Porton
  Needleless Injection
  Needleless Injection
  World Health Organisation Research, Porton
  World Health Organisation Research, Porton
  Porton Establishments (Assistance to East Africa)
  Porton Establishments (Assistance to East Africa)
  Decontamination of Food (Research)
  Decontamination of Food (Research)
  Vaccine Development, Porton (Marketing)
  Vaccine Development, Porton (Marketing)
  Research Establishment, Porton and Radio Chemical Laboratory, Amersham
  Research Establishment, Porton and Radio Chemical Laboratory, Amersham
  River Pollution Research, Porton
  River Pollution Research, Porton
  Disease Research, Porton
  Disease Research, Porton
  Defence Land
  Defence Land
  Research Establishment, Porton and Wellcome Foundation (Commercial Agreement)
  Research Establishment, Porton and Wellcome Foundation (Commercial Agreement)
  Admiralty Research Establishments (Caldecote Report)
  Admiralty Research Establishments (Caldecote Report)
  Compound CS
  Compound CS
RAILWAYS
  Railways Board Vice-Chairman (Salary)
  Railways Board Vice-Chairman (Salary)
  Hurst Green-Lewes Line
  Hurst Green-Lewes Line
  Merchant Seamen (Cheap Fare Concessions)
  Merchant Seamen (Cheap Fare Concessions)
TRANSPORT
  Unwanted Vehicles (Disposal)
  Unwanted Vehicles (Disposal)
  Leicester University Report
  Leicester University Report
  Driving Test Fees
  Driving Test Fees
ROADS
  A20 Improvement Scheme
  A20 Improvement Scheme
  Housing Demolition, Salford
  Housing Demolition, Salford
  River Thames (Bridge or Tunnel Scheme)
  River Thames (Bridge or Tunnel Scheme)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potato Imports
  Potato Imports
  Imports
  Imports
  Forestry Commission Land (Common Rights)
  Forestry Commission Land (Common Rights)
  Welsh Rural Development Board (Inquiry)
  Welsh Rural Development Board (Inquiry)
  Farm Amalgamations
  Farm Amalgamations
  Brucellosis (Laboratory Tests)
  Brucellosis (Laboratory Tests)
  Beef Recording Association (Grants)
  Beef Recording Association (Grants)
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
COAL
  Advertising (Scotland)
  Advertising (Scotland)
  Prices
  Prices
  Alcan Smelter, Invergordon (Coal Supplies)
  Alcan Smelter, Invergordon (Coal Supplies)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University of Wales (Students)
  University of Wales (Students)
  Colour Prejudice (Schools Council Projects)
  Colour Prejudice (Schools Council Projects)
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
  Football (Chester Committee of Inquiry Report)
  Football (Chester Committee of Inquiry Report)
  National Museums and Galleries (Building Programme)
  National Museums and Galleries (Building Programme)
POST OFFICE
  Microwave Stations (Aerial Heights)
  Microwave Stations (Aerial Heights)
  DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (RESPONSIBILITIES)
  DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (RESPONSIBILITIES)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Sheltered Workshop, Brighton
  Sheltered Workshop, Brighton
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Schoolchildren (Smoking)
  Schoolchildren (Smoking)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Unlicensed Motor Vehicles
  Unlicensed Motor Vehicles
TECHNOLOGY
  Signals Research and Development Establishment (Staff)
  Signals Research and Development Establishment (Staff)
HOUSING
  Mortgages (Agricultural and Horticultural Dwellings)
  Mortgages (Agricultural and Horticultural Dwellings)
  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  WESTMINSTER HALL (GRAND COMMITTEE ROOM)
  WESTMINSTER HALL (GRAND COMMITTEE ROOM)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Monuments and Public Buildings, London (Cleaning)
  Monuments and Public Buildings, London (Cleaning)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  British Workers Overseas (Industrial Injuries)
  British Workers Overseas (Industrial Injuries)
  Deserted Mothers (Dependent Children)
  Deserted Mothers (Dependent Children)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Newspapers, Scotland (Advertisements)
  Newspapers, Scotland (Advertisements)
WALES
  Forestry Commission (Unplantable Land)
  Forestry Commission (Unplantable Land)
  Central Wales Railway Line
  Central Wales Railway Line

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

EMPLOYMENT OF PART-TIME MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reductions have been made by local education authorities in the number of part-time married women teachers employed by them as a result of economies forced on them by Government action and what is the estimated financial saving.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, my right honourable friend has no evidence that the total number of part-time married women teachers has been reduced. He is aware that some authorities are recruiting fewer part-time teachers than they might have done but for the Government's economy measures, but it is not yet clear whether the effect will be that the total number of part-time teachers employed will fall, or merely that its rate of growth will be diminished. In any case the total number of teachers, full-time and part-time together, is likely to go on increasing.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Is the noble Baroness aware that, in an effort to save money, certain local education authorities are not recruiting any more part-time married teachers for the forthcoming year, and that considerable sums of money are involved? Is this not a disastrous result of the economy measures?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that in this matter the local education authorities are masters of their own affairs. Government
674
grants to local authorities have not been cut. The local authorities have been asked to achieve economies in expenditure in whatever way they see fit. If the noble Lord feels that it would be useful to do so, I shall be happy to convey some of this information to my right honourable friend.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, even without any improvement, expenditure in this field is rising at the rate of about 6 per cent. and that by restricting the rate to 3 per cent. the local authorities, since they have to make cuts somewhere, are forced to make them in the teaching profession? There are many authorities, including Surrey, who look to see a major saving achieved by cutting down on the employment of part-time teachers.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that I am not aware of the circumstances of each individual local education authority. Equally with the noble Lord, I would deplore any restriction in the number of teachers. One recognises that here the local education authorities have a problem which each must solve in its own way. The Government are hoping that they will not in any event restrict the number of teachers.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness say whether it is a correct description of these teachers to describe them as "part-time married women"?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the campaigns to get married women back into education as part-time or full-time teachers met with considerable frustration in the period when they were launched. If there is to be this added restriction, it will not be easy to reactivate the flow when the economic cuts are over.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord may have specific examples of this; but of course there is still a great need for more teachers. The difficulty, as the noble Lord will be aware, is that there is no evenness of demand though-out the country. What my right honourable friend hopes is that the teachers will go to the places where they are needed. There will inevitably be some areas more

675
attractive than others and, naturally, in them there will be more people seeking positions as teachers than there are positions to fill. Totally, there is still a great need for teachers.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there are now more teachers in schools than ever before, and also that there are now more student teachers in training than ever before?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I am quite sure that he is correct. I cannot give particular figures; but I should be happy to pass on this valuable information to any noble Lord who wishes it.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRAD-FELLTE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness convey to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State the absolute necessity for making a particular case for married women teachers; because, as the noble Lord has already said, it was not easy before to get them back into the profession? They are absolutely essential, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, if we are to reduce the sizes of classes. Will the noble Baroness be good enough to see that they are watched carefully and cherished, so that the number of teachers will not fall below the minimum that we require.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I can assure her not only that she has a friend at court in me, but that my right honourable friend is aware, from his own personal experience, of the problems of the teaching profession. My own newly acquired daughter-in-law is one of these part-time teachers—although she is not "part-time married".
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how a married teacher moves a reluctant husband?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, perhaps husbands of the newer generation are much more intelligent in their attitude.

MOTOR VEHICLES' MULTI-TONE HORNS
2.43 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there are any regulations which govern the combinations of musical notes that may be incorporated in the sounds made by motor horns on private vehicles; and if there are, whether adequate measures are taken to enforce them.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, there is no such regulation, but two-tone horns may be fitted only to police, fire, ambulance and certain other special service vehicles used for emergency purposes.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which I can hardly accept as being very satisfactory. Is my noble friend aware that a few days ago a car drew level with mine and emitted, suddenly and stridently, a series of notes which I immediately identified as the first bar of the refrain to that stirring military march, Colonel Bogey? Does my noble friend realise that a less placid driver might have had his attention distracted, to the peril of people on the road; and will my noble friend please urge upon the Minister of Transport the need to do something about such things as this—a task which he may probably find easier, now that the Minister is a gentleman and not a lady?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend imputes to me a measure of omniscience which I do not possess. If my noble friend overcame this difficulty with such equanimity, I am certain that many others also will do so in the future. There is no regulation against playing Colonel Bogey on a motor horn.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, in view of the fact that some of these startling instruments which are being used on private vehicles appear to be designed for the purpose of frightening people and making one jump, may I

677
ask my noble friend whether it is possible under existing regulations to ban their use? Can he say whether the number of mobile police has been increased in order to try to check this growing anarchy of noise on the roads?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that the existing police force is dealing with all problems of road safety. The police are a sensible group of men. If there were obviously an abuse of the use of horns of this type, they would take notice of it. There is no specific regulation forbidding the use of such a horn.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, am I to understand that two-tone horns are probihited but that there is nothing to prevent the use of three-tone, four-tone or five-tone horns, or even horns with a higher number of tones?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations retain the right to use two-tone horns for various official vehicles. Anybody else can have a complete octave if he wishes.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, arising out of the Answer given by my noble friend, may I ask whether, in the contemplated legislation with regard to noise, it is intended to deal with this growing menace?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question.

BRITISH HONDURAS AND GUATE-MALA: MEDIATOR'S SCHEME
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their considered opinion of the American arbitrator's scheme for settling the dispute between Guatemala and British Honduras, in view of the condemnation of that scheme by both political parties in British Honduras.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in another place on May 20 that the Government of British
678
Honduras had asked Her Majesty's Government not to accede to the mediator's proposed treaty and that this request had been unanimously endorsed by the House of Representatives of British Honduras. We have consistently made it clear that the dispute with Guatemala would not be settled on a basis which was not in accordance with the wishes of British Honduras. Since the draft treaty is not acceptable to British Honduras, it is not acceptable to the British Government either.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very welcome Answer. May I ask him two supplementary questions? Do the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government realise that the long delay in the production of the mediator's report has imposed a severe strain on those responsible for the running of the political and administrative affairs of British Honduras; and that the uncertainty of this particular Sword of Damocles has been further aggravated by each sign of weakness on the part of Her Majesty's Government in other parts of the world such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? Secondly, in view of his statement, could the Minister Rive the House a more positive explanation of how the freedom of Belize is to be guaranteed after independence, bearing in mind the irresponsible reduction of the Armed Services of this country?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think I should say, first, on the question of the length of time it has taken to produce the mediator's draft treaty, that it was an extremely difficult and complicated problem. I think your Lordships will agree that we should be grateful to the mediator for the hard work he has done and for the valiant attempt he has made to solve this problem. I realise that while the mediation process has been going on there has been uncertainty in this area. The noble Lord will hardly be surprised to hear that I cannot agree that there has been weakness on the part of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. Nor can I agree that those actions that we have taken to re-deploy our Forces overseas are in any way to be categorised as irresponsible. In the light of the fact that we have declared the mediator's proposals as unacceptable, I think there is no point in commenting

679
on the substance of any proposed treaty or of speculating on what might happen in the future.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as I negotiated our Treaty with Guatemala and Puerto Rico in 1962, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that at that time and ever since the people of British Honduras have made it absolutely clear through their representatives and Prime Minister, Mr. Rice, that they do not want political association with Guatemala and they want complete independent sovereignty within the Commonwealth? May I also ask him this question?—I am sorry I have not had time to give him notice as I should have liked. Under this Treaty of 1962 it was agreed that a tripartite conference between Britain, Guatemala and British Honduras should meet at intervals to discuss matters of mutual economic interest. May I ask whether this conference has ever met, and, if it has never met, is not its failure to do so entirely due to the failure of the Guatemalan Government to send representatives, which Britain and British Honduras were both willing and anxious to do?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course we are aware of the wishes of the people of British Honduras in this matter, and we have made clear as consistently as they have that we will not arrive at any settlement against the wishes of the people of British Honduras. We stand by that position. So far as the tripartite arrangements are concerned, I must confess that the noble Earl has taken me rather by surprise with this question. There is no reason why I should not be. I should like to point out—and this is relevant to his question—that Guatemala broke off diplomatic relations with us in 1963, and this may have some effect on the possibility of conducting tripartite negotiations with them. For our part we would be very ready to resume diplomatic relations with them if they made a request to do so, and this may facilitate this kind of consultation. I should also say—and this is certainly relevant to the noble Earl's question—that although this particular phase in the mediation is over, we do not by any means accept that mediation itself on this particular issue is finished. There
680
are still possibilities of going forward on a basis of mediation to find a solution.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Would he please look at the Treaty we signed in April, 1962, to see whether anything has ever been done under it?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will give that undertaking. If the noble Earl signed the Treaty, I am sure it will be well worth looking at.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while congratulating the Government on their decision and welcoming it, may I ask two question arising from it? The first is on the economic viability of British Honduras. Are steps to be taken now to attempt to secure co-ordination with the ex-British spheres in the West Indies? The second question is in relation to the defence of British Honduas, which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. In view of the Monroe doctrine, it will be difficult to arrange for the defence of British Honduras. May I ask whether any negotiations are going to take place in order that this very small territory may have a sense of security?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am always prepared to be more than usually indulgent with my noble friend, knowing his interest in these matters, but I really think that this is entirely another question. If my noble friend would put a Question down, I will answer it.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the non-acceptance by British Honduras of the mediator's scheme for that country will delay their independence in any way?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this is also another question. The future arrangements for British Honduras are outside the actual field of this Question. As I say, we have agreed that because the Government and all political Parties in British Honduras have turned down this draft Treaty, it is of no interest to us. But I repeat what I said in answer to the noble Earl opposite, that we do not think this has really brought mediation to an end and therefore it would not be profitable for me to speculate on the kind of question the noble Lord has raised.

IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND HEATHROW CONTROLS
2.55 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to report the result of the full inquiry ordered into the action of 39 immigration officers at Heathrow Airport in writing to Mr. Enoch Powell in support of his Birmingham speech on immigration.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the action of these officers was in breach of a long-standing rule against taking any active part in any matter which is of public or political controversy. An inquiry made in accordance with the normal Civil Service disciplinary procedure has now been completed. This took account of all the circumstances, including representations made by the officers about their difficulties in dealing with would-be evaders of the immigration control. As a result, one officer has been transferred away from the Immigration Service, and 37 others have received a formal reprimand.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, are we to take it from that reply that the inquiry has been confined to the disciplinary aspect of the matter? Because it is clear from The Times report on April 25 that there is a good deal more to it than that. Should there not be an independent inquiry into what is behind the move made by these officers, who may have been up against the Home Office itself in endeavouring to combat illegal immigration? Surely that aspect of the matter should be inquired into independently.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I made it perfectly clear that the Home Office inquiry into the action of these officers included consideration of the representations they made about their difficulties. The central feature of this matter is that on this occasion civil servants went outside the general disciplinary rules applying to them, which state that:
682
"Civil servants who advise Ministers and carry out Ministers' policies, and thus come within the politically restricted group, are bound to retain a proper reticence in matrers of public and political controversy, so that their impartiality is beyond suspicion."
The rules also say that if they feel that they must give expresssion to their private feelings, then,
"they must first consult their official superiors and should, if necessary, seek an interview with the Permanent Head of the Department.
This they did not do, and this is the matter with which we are concerned.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, does not the matter go rather wider than this? One of these officials is reported to have said:
"There is perpetual corruption and countless numbers of ways are used to get illegal immigrants into the country."
The letter itself is said to have stated that:
"On occasions the Home Office would cave in to pressure to allow in a man who in all probability is not entitled to enter."
Has that been investigated?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I reject at once, and I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, would have been the last to suggest that the Home Office would "cave in" to pressure from outside. It is a suggestion quite unworthy of him, although he was repeating something alleged to have been said by an immigration officer. The facts are quite otherwise. The number of refusals of admission rose from 1,339 in 1966 to 2,218 in 1967, an increase of 65 per cent. In the first quarter of this year, as compared with the first quarter of 1967, there has been a further increase of 65 per cent. in the number of refusals of admission.
When Parliament decides, properly and unanimously, that there must be further restrictions on the entry of immigrants, this adds to the pressure, for, contrary to what some people say, countless millions throughout the world regard British citizenship and the right to live here as one of the most prized possessions they could get. All this adds to the pressure to evade the control, which in turn adds to the work of the immigration officers. But this is something which Parliament has decided.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, there is also a good Home Office

683
rule that not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. Would it not be to the interest of the Home Office to hold an independent inquiry into some of these allegations that have been made?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is difficult to understand why the noble Lord wants an inquiry. As he is perfectly well aware, these officers acted wrongly. They have been dealt with entirely in accordance with the rules to which they subscribe and of which they are well aware. As for the allegations of corruption, which the noble Lord mentioned, we are aware of the wide variety of attempts at evasion—to say that you are the child or the wife of a man with whom you have no relationship; to say that you are over 65 when you are under 65, or to have a false passport or false claims. All these things we are aware of, and the matter is constantly under consideration. Not only these basic grade officers but the whole of the Immigration Department is constantly in touch with the Home Office informing us of any new development. There is nothing further to inquire into.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, did not the statement made indicate that in the view of these officers a great many people may be getting in by some means or other who should not get admission to this country? Is it not worthwhile to have an investigation to find out whether that suggestion is true? I am not entering into the field of controversy in the Home Office, but if I understood it aright, these officers suggested that large numbers were getting in who ought not to get in. Ought not that to be investigated?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if it were true that large numbers were getting in who should not be allowed in, then it is an allegation that immigration officers are failing in their duty. On behalf of all immigration officers, who have done a very difficult job for a long time and done it extremely well, I completely reject that allegation.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government are prepared to publish the results of the investigations which were made into the causes which led these officers to take the steps which they did take?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Viscount should make that suggestion and that he is apparently unaware of the procedure. What happens in cases of an offence of this kind against the disciplinary rules is that the person is given a written statement defining the charge and setting out the facts. He is then required to send a written statement in reply, and is given an opportunity to make an oral statement thereafter if he so wishes. None of these officers availed themselves of any of those opportunities. I make no complaint about what the Press have said, but there are no allegations to investigate.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, while I approve most warmly of the stand which my noble friend and the Government have taken on this matter, does not the whole discussion show clearly the need for the implementation of the Wilson Committee proposals as to the rights of the human individual as a matter of the highest priority?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend, and the Government have this in mind. However, as he will appreciate, that is another question.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, would not the noble Lord consider that because 39 officers were involved in this complaint this, in itself, would give ground to fear that these officers had something with which they found it extremely difficult to contend? Secondly, could he tell the House who it was who carried out the inquiry into this affair?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, there were 38 officers, not 39, involved. The inquiry was carried out within the Home Office under the normal Civil Service conditions which are laid down and are never varied. So far as the conduct of these officers is concerned, it is no secret that they have a very difficult job to do, but there is no question that they or any other immigration officers ever carried out their duties other than with strict impartiality.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has not answered my question? I

685
take it that there will be no report. But does the noble Lord realise that from what he has said he will leave the suspicion with a large number of people that the refusal of the Home Office to have an independent inquiry into this matter indicates that there is something to hide?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have completely answered the noble Lord's question, and, indeed, I have answered questions which have nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper, as I always try to do. I can only repeat—and I leave it to the public—that there is nothing to report. We have dealt properly with an offence against discipline, and that ought to be the end of it in the minds of all responsible people.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is one thought that is bound to remain in people's minds, and that is how 38 loyal civil servants could feel so strongly about a matter as to break the disciplinary code?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, let us hope that this is an aberration from which they have now fully recovered.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is another thought which will remain, at any rate in my mind, and it is this: how comes it that people who have held responsible posts as Ministers of State can make allegations of this sort, and can think that this is the right or the wrong way for civil servants to behave? I find it utterly incomprehensible, whatever the inducements of Party politics may be.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, shows that he has completely missed the point? There are twe perfectly distinct questions. One is the disciplinary action that has been taken, on which, if I may respectfully say so, I appreciate the Answer given by the Minister; but the further question raised by various noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne, is on the investigation into this matter.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD CONESFORD: On that question the Minister says that he does not think there is anything to be inquired into.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Questions!
LORD CONESFORD: Did the noble Lord not say in his original Answer that this had been investigated? Does he not now say that there is nothing to investigate?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for putting us on the right road, not for the first time, but I would ask him to be so kind as to look at my first Answer in Hansard, and he will then find that I dealt with this matter completely.

SAINT JAMES AND SAINT PAUL, PLUMSTEAD BILL [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, the connection with the subject matter of this Bill is very tenuous, but I think I should declare that I am the Treasurer of the Church Pastoral Aid Society, which is named in a scheme for the Church Commissioners as one of the joint patrons of the united parishes of St. John, St. James and St. Paul, Plumstead, and is also a joint patron of St. John and St. James at present. The point to which I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships relates to St. Paul's Church. Under Clause 4 of the Bill, the Rochester and Southwark Diocesan Church Trust will have the right to sell, inter alie, St. Paul's Church, and it is indicated in the evidence given to the Select Committee that it is their intention to sell this church to the Roman Catholic community, though this is not specifically stated in the Bill. It is generally agreed that these churches are not required for the purposes of the parish, and therefore it is sensible and right that they should be sold. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that this creates a precedent, in that it is the first time that a standing Church of England church has been sold to the Roman Catholics.

687
I say at once that I am not opposing the Bill in any way, nor am I opposing the intended action following the Bill. But I believe it is right for Parliament to appreciate that this is setting a precedent: indeed, I believe one of the reasons for proceeding with this matter by a Bill and not by some other means was that it was felt that this was the right way to do it because of the precedent that was being set. I would emphasise again that I am not opposing the Bill in any way, or the action which is likely to follow. There is now a new outlook between the Christian Churches. Certainly thirty years ago this might have been a cause célèbre; but there is a new outlook now, and it is generally agreed, I think, among Christian Churches that it is more important to promote the spread of the Christian Gospel than to argue about different parts of the Christian Church. Nevertheless, I believe it is right for Parliament to be aware of the precedent being set, and I hope the House will not feel that I have wasted its time in drawing attention to this point.
3.10 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, as this Bill is now being debated on Third Reading your Lordships may wish me, as the Chairman of the Select Committee to which this Bill was committed, to give some account of our consideration of it. We are concerned here with two parishes in Plumstead in the Diocese of South-wark; namely, the united parish of St. James with St. John the Baptist, and the parish of St. Paul. We are also concerned with three churches; that is to say, St. James, St. John, and St. Paul. Of these three churches, only one, the Church of St. John, is now used for public worship. The prevailing conditions in this situation are sparsity of congregations and heavy cost of upkeep of churches.
The Bill is promoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and others from the Anglican Church; and I am glad to see that the right reverend Prelate is to speak later in this debate. There are three points to which I wish to draw attention. First, the Bill states that it is proposed that these two parishes should be united, and that the Church of St. John should become the parish church of the new
688
united parish. Both these changes would be made in virtue of existing Church Measures by way of pastoral reorganisation schemes which are now being promoted. Neither of these proposals, therefore, came before the Select Committee at all for decision, but they were both brought up during our proceedings and discussed. They have, we are told, been in operation de facto for the past two years.
Secondly, the Bill proposes that the authorities of the Church of England should have power to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the redundant churches of St. James and St. Paul; and that they should have power, in addition, to devote the proceeds of such sale et cetera to parochial and diocesan purposes in the manner laid down in the Bill. These would be enabling powers. They would not be exercisable until after the pastoral reorganisation schemes, which I have mentioned, had been duly confirmed. The provisions in regard to these powers are the essential clauses of the Bill. It was in order to secure these powers that the Church authorities decided to proceed by Private Bill. These were the two chief matters that came before the Select Committee for decision.
Thirdly, the Promoters stated in evidence that they proposed to sell the redundant church of St. Paul, which has not been used for public worship for the past two years, to the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, who had made them an offer, and with whom they had concluded a conditional contract. This intention to sell to the Roman Catholics, of course, forms no part of the Bill. It was, however, the main burden of the strong representations made in evidence by the Petitioners against the Bill, and it was much in the minds of the Committee when they came to their conclusion on the Bill. The Promoters of the Bill, for their part, held that the Church of England should have the right to sell its property freely, and that it was contrary to the present climate of opinion in ecclesiastical affairs to maintain that, failing another sale, a redundant Anglican church should have to be demolished and the site disposed of, rather than that the church should be sold as it stood to the Roman Catholics, who had an existing use for it. The right

689
reverend Prelate will no doubt have something to say about that when he speaks.
Under the Bill, the uses to which the proceeds of any sale would be devoted would include expenditure on the fabric of the new parish church of St. John, on the church hall and parsonage, and for charitable purposes in the parish and in the diocese. The sale of the church, if it took place, would bring in about £30,000, whereas the cleared site, after demolition, would yield only about £4,000.
Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the pastoral reorganisation in the area had been ill-considered and had given offence to parishioners, and that St. Paul's church should have been saved and chosen instead of St. John's as the parish church of the new united parish. It was further maintained in the strongest terms by the witness for the Protestant interest that the Church of England would be betraying a sacred trust to uphold the Protestant faith if it allowed its churches to pass into the hands of Roman Catholics.
My Lords, having heard the evidence of witnesses and the submissions of counsel for two full days, the Select Committee came to the opinion in all the circumstances that the Bill should be allowed to proceed. When announcing this opinion they added that they were considering whether it might be desirable to make a special report to the House on the Bill; but, on reflection, they have since decided not to do so. Perhaps I might here offer a word of explanation. What we had in mind in considering a possible special report was that it might be well to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, so far as we could discover, this would probably be the first occasion on which the Church of England would be given power to sell one of their redundant churches as a standing structure, and it would certainly be the first occasion of a sale to the Roman Catholic Church, if such a sale were to be concluded.
Our grounds for not making a special report were as follows. Special reports by Select Committees are infrequent. They are most likely to be made on the rare occasions when the House gives an Instruction to a Select Committee, which the Committee will wish to show that it has fulfilled. This was done, as the noble.
690
Lord, Lord Grenfell, will remember, in the cases of the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill and the Brighton Marina Bill. This was not the case here. In any event, there did not seem to be any real need to alert the House. The Promoters had in fact courted publicity, which they duly received, and this was one of the reasons for their coming to Parliament. The transcript of the proceedings was available, and it was open to any noble Lord who was especially interested to intervene on Third Reading. If this occurred, any necessary explanation could then be given. This is in fact what is now happening, thanks to the initiative of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote.
There was also a further consideration. This was that, whereas in the past the sale of a redundant church as a standing structure has required a Private Bill, this would not be necessary when the Pastoral Measure which was then about to come before your Lordships' House came into operation. What up to now had been an exceptional case would be expected to become less exceptional in the near future when it would be possible to proceed by way of schemes under this new Pastoral Measure, without the need to come to the House, to Parliament, at all. To this extent, therefore, my Lords, it seemed to us that there was less occasion to draw special attention to the Bill. And, indeed, the Pastoral Measure of which I have spoken has since been approved by your Lordships' House. I trust that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Third Reading.
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, later this year I, assisted by the Bishop of Chicago, shall be dedicating a new church, a very fine building costing in the neighbourhood of £150,000, in the area of Catford. It will be done with the traditional splendour and pageantry of the Established Church. At the climax of the service I shall say, "I dedicate this church". Because I say those words, if, later on, people decide that they want to move it or sell it, or to say, "Look here, we ought to put it in a better place", the matter will be decided locally and by the Bishop of the diocese, without any reference to Parliament or to law. On the other hand, if, instead of this long service which will go

691
on for as much as an hour and a half, and if instead of saying "I dedicate this church" I were to say "I consecrate this church", then my successors could not do anything about it in the future without having endless legal hurdles to overcome and passing measures through the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
That is the position in which we now find ourselves in regard to this particular building in Plumstead. I apologise that this has had to be brought before your Lordships' House just because one of my predecessors chose to use the word "consecrate" instead of "dedicate". Because of that one word we have to spend literally hundreds of pounds in legal fees and in bringing this Bill to this House and perhaps to another place. I sometimes wonder whether the Carpenter of Nazareth, if He had thought such things would have been the outcome of His mission, would ever have contemplated starting a Church.
Having made that point, I feel—and I am sure your Lordships do—with some conviction, that it is fairly tragic that we should be spending our time discussing such matters. Nevertheless we have to do so. As the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, rightly says—and I have every respect for the point that he has made—it is the first time we are selling a consecrated church to the Roman Catholics, and I agree with the noble Lord that therefore it is something which we must take seriously. There are just two matters for us to consider. There is the question of the Church of Saint Paul: should it be closed or should it not?; and the second question is, does it matter to whom we sell it? In this case we have decided to sell it to the Roman Catholics.
As your Lordships have to come to an opinion, it is my duty to give you the facts, so let me do that as briefly as possible. First, the closing of Saint Paul's Church. In Plumstead there are nine Anglican parish churches; there are 17 Nonconformist churches and there are two Roman Catholic churches, all for a population of 70,000 people. Now the Anglican Church, through its appropriate committees, has decided that nine parish churches are too many and that we can best order our affairs if we have fewer; and although I am in no way
692
responsible for the Nonconformist churches I may say that they have been led to similar conclusions. The Presbyterian Church has surrendered its building and, I am proud to say, has found a home in our Anglican Church of St. Mary, Woolwich. We, together, the Presbyterian Church and the Anglicans, share that one building. Three Methodist churches are pooling their resources to become one congregation. Then there are two Baptist churches. They are joining forces and are in the process of appointing the first minister of a united congregation.
The Church of England, like the Free Churches, has embarked upon a programme of reorganisation. Within these nine parishes there are two groups: first, St. Margaret and St. Mark and, secondly, St. James, St. John and St. Paul—to which we are now referring—and we are concerned this afternoon only with the second group of St. James, St. John and St. Paul. All three were small, struggling congregations, and in 1953–15 years ago—St. James and St. John were united. In 1965, when the incumbent of St. Paul resigned, the Pastoral Reorganisation Committee advised me that St. Paul's should be included in the union with St. John's as the parish church. There were many reasons for this but I need trouble your Lordships with only two: first, St. John's was geographically the most suitable and, second, all three churches were of the same type of churchmanship, Evangelical or, as your Lordships prefer to say, "Low Church". This means that the congregations of St. James's and St. Paul's would find in St. John's the same pattern of churchmanship to which they were accustomed, namely, Low Church.
Let me admit straight away that when the recommendation was made by the Pastoral Reorganisation Committee in April, 1965, a mistake was made: the recommendations were sent to the rural dean and not to the vicar. That ought not to have happened. However, as soon as the mistake was discovered and in less than a month, my Suffragan Bishop, the Bishop of Woolwich, met the church council and explained the position. In the following months the proposals were discussed by the church council and it was eventually decided by a

693
majority vote that St. James's and St. Paul's should be closed and just St. John's left. In fact, on March 25, 1966, the parochial church council of St. Paul's—and we are concerned to-day with St. Paul's alone—by six votes to one, requested the Bishop of Southwark to close St. Paul's as soon as possible. This concludes the first part of the story—the three parishes of their own free will decided to amalgamate. St. John's was to be the parish church, St. James's and St. Paul's were to be closed.
We now pass to the second part of the story. What was to happen to these unwanted churches, St. James's and St. Paul's? This afternoon we can ignore St. James's; although I would say in passing that if a Protestant denomination were to make an offer for the building we should be pleased to consider it, or, if any of your Lordships know of any body which might like this unwanted building, I shall be only too pleased to hear about it. But St. James's is not my concern this afternoon; our concern is with St. Paul's. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Southwark, Dr. Cowderoy, informed me that one of his churches in Plumstead was inadequate and he would like to transfer his congregation to another and larger building, and that is why he has bought St. Paul's. I want to make the point that the Established Church is not encouraging the Roman Catholic Church to start a new church. That is quite untrue. There are two Roman Catholic churches in Plumstead, one of which, for various reasons, is inadequate, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Southwark wishes to have a bigger building. We do not want St. Paul's, so he has said, "May we have it from you?".
Here I was up against a difficulty. I find it difficult to believe that your Lordships will appreciate this, but as the law stands I can sell the site to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Southwark but not the building. Let me explain what that means. I can say to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Southwark, "Yes, I want to help you, but, as the law now stands, before I let you have this building I must pull it down. I can then sell you the site and you can put up that building exactly as it was before". That is the law as it now stands. That struck me as being bad
694
economics and not particularly good Christianity, and for that reason my diocese promoted the Bill that is before your Lordships, to sell St. Paul's as it stood to the Roman Catholics, so that we might avoid the absurd procedure of the Church of England demolishing the building and then the Roman Catholics having to build it up again. You may now understand why I said a little earlier that I wondered what this Bill had to do with the teaching of the Carpenter of Nazareth.
Moreover and let me be frank—the money from the sale of the building was inevitably much greater than would have resulted from the sale of the mere site, and we needed the extra money as part of it was to be used for the development of the new parish church of St. John, I apologise for wearying your Lordships with these details, but I hope I have made clear the situation. The selling of St. Paul's, which was already determined to be redundant, would benefit the Anglicans by enriching St. John's and would also benefit the Roman Catholics who required an alternative building. On July 2, 1967, in my capacity as Bishop of the diocese I explained the position to the parochial church council of St. Paul's. No vote was taken, as I thought it would be wiser to give the members of the council plenty of time to consider what I had said. Four months later, when I was not present, the parochial church council of St. Paul's unanimously decided, and here I quote:
"We agree in principle to the sale of St. Paul's church to the Roman Catholic authorities."
There are the facts and I am happy to leave them with your Lordships for your consideration. After two years' careful consideration the parish and diocese decided by the customary democratic process to close St. Paul's, Plum-stead, and sell the building to the Roman Catholics. Since that date, people, most of whom do not belong to the parish or to the Church of England and who are not necessarily resident in this country, have tried to prevent this sale. It would serve no useful purpose to comment on their motives or their activities. Instead, I prefer to commend the scheme to your Lordships on the grounds that, first, the Church of England is tackling its problems of reorganisation in Plum-stead in a sensible and businesslike way.

695
and, secondly, the Church of England instead of pulling down its unwanted building and perhaps selling the site for secular purposes is helping another Christian denomination. Finally, in these ecumenical days what could be more straightforward than that when we, the Church of England, do not want a building, instead of pulling that building down and selling the site we turn to another Christian denomination and say, "If you want it, we will do all that we can, as brother Christians, to help you".
3.33 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I rise to support the Third Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships may recall that it is seven years ago this month that we had a debate in your Lordships' House on Christian unity, and although at that time we had taking part people of such widely varying ecclesiastical views as the most reverend Primate, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, and, leading for the then Opposition, the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, whose views differed considerably on a number of points, there was at that time, seven years ago, general agreement throughout your Lordships' House that we had reached the end of that scandalous period in the history of the Church when each Christian denomination went out of their way to hinder the work of their fellow Christians in other denominations. Now, we have reached the stage—and my noble friend Lord Caldecote began his remarks by drawing our attention to this—of positively seeking to reduce the differences that remain among us and endeavouring to extend further the growing area of co-operation.
When I say "We", I cannot, alas! include at the moment the Reverend Ian Paisley and his extreme Protestant colleagues from Northern Ireland, who have been so prominent among those opposing this Bill before our Select Committee. But here, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has pointed out, we have a case in Plumstead of Christians in one place trying to share more effectively their combined resources. This is a significant development, as the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, has pointed out. It is probably the first time since the Reformation that a church of the Church of England has been sold as it
696
stood to the Roman Catholics. But it is not a dramatic change in the local situation, because, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, there are still eight Anglican churches left in Plumstead and there are already two Roman Catholic Churches there. So it is not a question of ending Anglican work or of starting Roman Catholic work. But both congregations, Roman Catholic and Anglican, will be much the better for these changes; and, more important, in my view, both will be much better placed to do what they are there to do—that is to say, to worship God and to serve the community where they are centred. And I think all your Lordships would agree that those are more important aims than the maintenance of buildings, necessary as that is.
As I have said, in the last debate, seven years ago, on Christian unity, there was a welcome from all sides of the House for the more promising climate of unity between the Churches, and there was a wish widely expressed by your Lordships that it should be further encouraged. Here we have an opportunity for your Lordships to give practical expression to that wish by agreeing to the Third Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House and helping its passage into law.
3.36 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTS-MOUTH: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, both in principle and in detail. I do so on the ground of belief in the rightness of the Bill, and also, if I may say so, on the grounds of sentiment, because my father was the Vicar of St. Paul's, Plumstead, and it was during his time there that the Church was finally completed. I was born in the vicarage of St. Paul's, Plumstead, and I was christened in St. Paul's, Plumstead, Church. I do not pretend that those two latter events are any argument for retaining the building or for putting up a commemoration plaque, but from a sentimental point of view I cannot but feel delighted at the prospect that a building which has very close association should not be sent to the breaker's yard, so to speak, but should be continued to be used by a Christian body. It has already been pointed out that in this case a precedent is being set. I am only too delighted, from a personal point of view, that that

697
precedent should be focused in the Church of St. Paul's, Plumstead, and I very warmly support this Bill.
3.38 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I am glad to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his maiden speech. He has spoken to us with authority, with clarity and with wisdom, and his words have come home to us. I think I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that I hope we shall frequently hear him address us again, and I am sure we shall find him equally well informed.
I have only one observation and a couple of quick points to make about this Bill in supporting the Third Reading. The Bill was promoted because it is not yet possible to use the procedure which the Pastoral Measure will make possible when it comes into effect. This Measure, as your Lordships will remember, has now passed both Houses of Parliament, but the Archbishops have yet to name a date for the Measure to take effect, and it is doubtful whether this date can possibly be before January 1, 1969.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, in his irenic introductory speech referred to the new climate of opinion that there is up and down the country, and I thought it would perhaps be useful, in view of the wide publicity which this debate may receive, for a Prelate not in the Diocese of Southwark to make one or two observations. I can illustrate the position we are considering to-day if I take one or two facts from the Diocese of St. Albans. In that diocese a parochial church council voted nem. con. to rent a daughter church, which was a dedicated and not a consecrated building, to the Roman Catholics. Counsel's opinion was taken, and the Church was let furnished for seven years. Originally, this building was an independent chapel. The Church of England acquired it about eighty years ago. The shift of population now makes it surplus to our needs, and also results in the Church of Rome needing a church in this area.
The use of this building illustrates the new situation in which we live. It has changed hands to the advantage of the Christian community, and I am told that there have been no complaints. I have deliberately avoided mentioning where
698
this church is situated, for if I were to do so people outside the town might come and stir up trouble. It is often outsiders who cause distress and misrepresent issues. I believe that the climate of opinion in the country as a whole, to which I have referred, should be borne in mind here to-day, and I believe that up and down the country many would support this Bill now before your Lordships' House. I beg to support the Third Reading.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, in the course of this debate a number of friendly and kindly things have been said about the denomination to which I have the honour to belong. I feel that it would be ungracious on my part of I did not express my real gratitude for the warmth of those sentiments and to give two assurances. The first is to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans; that if he should ever come and renew his baptismal vows in my church he will be a most welcome guest. The other assurance is that though St. Paul's, Plumstead, will no longer be a low church, it will, I trust, always remain very evangelical indeed.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, this ecclesiastical Bill has nothing to do with me, but as I am probably the only official residual legatee of the traditions of the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough it might not be inappropriate if I said how certain I am that the climate of opinion has changed, and probably the opinions of the late Lord Alexander are now more fruitful in this field than they were. I want to say, as a Methodist, how heartily I agree with the general propositions behind this Bill, and how heartily all of us in your Lordships' House ought to agree that in these days, when so many people have forgotten even the name of the church they stay away from, to maintain a place of worship within the Christian tradition, is a principle to which we should give our ardent support. I for one, as a Nonconformist, desire to support this Bill.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, your Lordships will not expect me to say anything on the merits of this Bill, and I do not think it is necessary for me to draw your Lordships' attention to the procedure in connection with the Bill, because that is a matter that has been

699
fully and adequately dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Strang. I should, however, like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, on behalf of his secular colleagues, on his maiden speech. I should also like to thank all noble Lords and right reverend Prelates who have spoken for drawing the attention of the House to matters of public policy arising on this Bill, before the House is asked to decide about the Third Reading. I hope that the Bill may be now given a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

HOUSE OF LORDS PROCEDURE
3.45 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK rose to move, That this House takes note of the increasing pressure on the time available for legislation and other business taken on the floor of the House and would welcome consideration of steps which might be taken to alleviate it. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend, Lord Shackleton. May I make it plain at the outset that I move this Motion realising very clearly that, compared with many others, my experience of your Lordships' House is limited, and, of course, my experience of this office of Chief Government Whip, which gives me some responsibility for organising business, is even more limited.
I hope that modesty alone would prevent me from moving the Motion which stands in the name of my noble friend were it not for two factors: First, that I do not seek to lay down any law but am anxious primarily, to collect opinions; secondly, though my membership of this House does not go back nearly so far as others, nevertheless we must all be aware that the character of the House itself is changing and the context within which it works is changing even more. Most of these changes, as I shall seek to
700
show, make more difficult the task of arranging business to the general convenience of the House.
It would be a simple reaction to this Motion to say that if business presses too hardly upon available time, then the solution is to restrict the volume of business. Throughout the years Oppositions have always tended to think that legislation going through either House of Parliament is too great in volume and wrongly conceived in character. I trust, however, that the approach this afternoon will be somewhat more constructive, and I am encouraged in that hope because on recent occasions when noble Lords on all sides of the House have complained about the lack of time available for particular pieces of legislation, they have also suggested that we had such a discussion as this, and indeed have put forward particular proposals designed to help meet this conflict with time. In any case, even if there is this inevitable wish to restrict the volume of business, the fact is that in this House our influence in that direction is not great and a much more useful approach is to consider the situation which in fact faces us.
May I explain a little more what I mean about the changing character of the House and of the context in which it works? First, it is obvious that we have in recent years had an increasing rate of recruitment to the membership of this House, and a recruitment of a somewhat different character. As I put it elsewhere the other day, we have not only more Peers, but Peers more assiduous in sitting and talking. I think many of us could take a lesson from the short debate to which we have just listened, when ten speakers to the Third Reading of the measure occupied no more than three-quarters of an hour all told. Fifteen years ago the average daily attendance was well under half of what it is to-day. In fact, the average was 96. Ten years ago the average daily attendance was 124. By 1961–62 it had risen to 143. In 1966–67 the average attendance was 200, and to date this Session we have an average of 225. There appears to be a correlation between the number who sit and the length of time the House sits, for over the same period not only have we sat more days but the average of each day has risen from under 5 hours to 5¼ hours

701
and this session to an average of 5½ hours a day.
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House, and myself as Government Chief Whip have listened in recent weeks to earnest pleas, sometimes couched in fairly strong terms, to adjust our business to meet the convenience, or essential interest, of this person or that, or one section of the House or another, or one nationality or another. I will claim that my noble friend and I invariably honestly endeavour to reconcile a particular interest with the convenience of the House as a whole. I ask your Lordships to believe that to an increasing extent, because of the diminishing freedom of manoeuvre, it is becoming less easy to meet the wishes of everyone at the same time on the same issue.
My Lords, so much for the changing character of the House. Now, about the changing context in which it works. If anything, this is an even more decisive factor. All legislation going through to receive Royal Assent has to go through the two Houses of Parliament. If the way through the other place is easier or speedier, than here, then if we are to keep pace some adjustment needs to be made in this place. For many years the other place have used the process of the Standing Committee in order to expedite the passage of the majority of Bills. In recent years the number of Standing Committees has increased. I understand that there are now eight Standing Committees. In addition, there are now two Scottish Standing Committees and a Scottish and a Welsh Grand Committee. Although Grand Committees, as I know, are not concerned with legislation, nevertheless they do take off the Floor of the House the discussion of important items of business which otherwise would be taking its attention.
This Session the other place has seen the regular institutions of a Second Reading Committee. We are now taking on the Floor of this House Bills which have been considered in Second Reading and Committee upstairs in the other place. Both the Second Reading and the Committee stage of certain Bills are now taken upstairs in the other place, but they all again have to come to the Floor of this House. And now we have another innovation down the Corridors of the Palace of Westminster. I understand
702
that at this time of year there was usually some relaxation of pressure because the other place was locked in combat, on the Floor, over the Finance Bill in Committee. This year we are denies that respite, for the Finance Bill, too, goes upstairs for Committee consideration.
We therefore have this situation in which the other place can deal with more legislation more speedily, but here we still continue to deal with the flow solely on the Floor of our Chamber. On the one hand, therefore, in the one House we have had the evolution of an elaborate system of Standing Committees. On the other hand, in this House, the changes, such as there are, have been the other way. In the first half of the 17th century virtually all Public Bills were communed to Select Committees of this House. The practice declined in the 18th century as the use of the Committee of the Whole House increased. There was an attempt to resuscitate the practice at the end of the 19th century by means of a Standing Committee, but since the Second World War, apart from the special case of Consolidation Bills, all Public Bills have been dealt with at all stages on the Floor of the House. As a matter of interest, I think it was the Bastardy Blood Tests Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, which was the last Bill from your Lordships' House to go upstairs.
Before I go on to say what might be done to deal with this situation, may I mention one other activity, excellent in itself but which in a small way has not eased the situation? I refer to the growing readiness of your Lordships to introduce Private Members' Bills. In 1945–46 only one Private Member's Pill was introduced into this House; from 1946–47 to 1953–54 only two each Session were introduced. Gradually this number has increased. In 1964–65 there were thirteen, in the last session there were fifteen, and already this session we have had eight. Maybe one might say, with a degree of satisfaction, that whilst up to 1955 no Private Member's Bill starting in this House received the Royal Assert, in 1963–64, of the eight Private Members' Bills introduced, seven went on to the Statute Book, and last Session five were similarly fortunate.
What then, my Lords, can be do le to help redress the imbalance as between this place and the other? From time to

703
time a number of suggestions have been made, and many of them can be implemented by the will of individual Members. There is always, of course, the proposal in the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, that speeches should be shorter—a proposal widely welcomed but so far honoured more in the breach than in the observance. There is the possibility that we should tighten our procedures and enforce more strictly those Standing Orders designed to facilitate business. For example, there is the tendency remarked upon by my noble friend Lord Rowley the other day to make Second Reading speeches on Committee stages. Then some of us seem to seek the leave of the House too readily to make a second contribution to the same Amendment on the Report stage. We all might, with advantage, decide ruthlessly to cut out repetition, and if a point has been made well by another not to remake it ourselves. No doubt we shall all have our ideas as to how small but useful gains could be made in this way. As I have indicated, all these small reforms require only the individual volition.
The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, in a short preliminary exchange we had about the unsatisfactory character of the way the business is managed in this House these days, said that one solution was the initial introduction of more Public Bills in this House. I quite agree that if too many Bill are started in the other place inevitably we get congestion here. This is a point to which I have endeavoured to give special attention. The facts are that, apart from the long Session of 1966–67 (and that was really a Session and a half), only in two Sessions since 1950 have we had as many Bills initially introduced in this House as has been the case this Session. Incidentally, I well remember with warm appreciation the kindly word given me by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, when I announced at the beginning of this Session the number of Bills which were to be started off in your Lordships' House.
I come to another proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, also supported, and which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, the other day. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said on April 25:
704
"I hope that one day we shall be sensible and send this"—
that was the Social Work (Scotland) Bill—
"and many other Bills like it to a Committee".
Maybe we might agree to consider again to-day whether we should try out this idea. It is not, of course, an entirely novel suggestion. The idea of committing Public Bills upstairs rather than to have the Committee on the Floor of the House has been current for some years. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, had much to say about this in a Motion which he moved some time ago.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what was said in the Second Report of the Procedure Committee, 1965–66. In paragraph 4 it was stated:
"The Committee have considered in detail the proposal to set up Standing Committees and attach particular importance to the objection that the House, owing to the representation of political Parties, cannot be usefully or satisfactorily sub-divided into smaller replicas of itself and that therefore it would be impossible to obtain political balance in a Standing Committee."
The Report goes on to say that in addition there is the difficulty of selection,
"In view of the fact that Standing Committees would have to meet in the mornings, the Committees were conscious of the difficulty of getting Peers to attend regularly."
Maybe your Lordships will consider whether the following conclusion which our Committee reached is still valid.
"For these reasons the Committee fear that the expedient of referring Public Bills or a particular class of Public Bills to a Standing Committee, if tried again, would be likely to meet the same fate as the unsuccessful experiment of 1889–1910."
Some of your Lordships may feel it is reasonable, after the lapse of 58 years, to try again. But in any case the Report of the Procedure Committee went on to say:
"The Committee would nevertheless not be opposed to the reference of a suitable Bill to a Select Committee should the situation seem to require it".
A possibility which I put to your Lordships for your consideration is to commit one Bill upstairs before August and see how we get on. It would be a sort of pilot experiment. I recognise that there are difficulties and, of course, the 1965–66 Procedure Committee mentioned some. The difficulty of manning a Committee is one, though we could get round the particular

705
problem of a morning Sitting by meeting concurrently with the House in the afternoon.
Selection of members of the Committee and the political balance together constitute the main problem. Here again we can probably solve that problem by going round it. I cannot see that we can aim at a proper political balance, since there can be no agreement on the word "proper". Many of us would say we lack a proper balance when we have a Committee of the Whole House. So that the solution may lie in allowing the Committee to choose itself or, as the Standing Committee in 1731 put it:
"All the Lords who shall come to any Committee"—
they were speaking about the Committee for Privileges—
"shall be of that Committee."
If we had this choice to attend formally, certain other problems come to mind, but none that good will, probably expressed by consultation through the usual channels, could not overcome.
I shall probably be asked: but what about voting rights? Here is both the nub of the problem and the core of the solution. What we seek here is an opportunity to influence, not primarily the power to vote. Let us vote by all means, but the contribution of this House will be in the deploying and examination of argument. Discussion not division is our strength, and we should not underestimate its importance. This was a point which was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in his most interesting speech on April 29, 1965. I can think of two quite important issues which in recent weeks have, or will have been, significantly amended not really by vote but by argument.
If, then, we can clarify all questions on the Bill upstairs, decide some, maybe re-commit others, certainly the contentious issues, to the Floor of the House in a Re-committal stage, we could provide ample opportunity for discussion and less opportunity for delay. Recommitment would be followed by Report stage, though presumably at a shorter interval. It might also be possible to take Report and Third Reading on the same day. What is aimed at here is not so much to speed the passage of a particular Bill, but to relieve the strain on
706
the Floor of this House. This objective will not be achieved if all the arguments advanced upstairs are duplicated on the Floor. It may well be that experience will show that some power of selection of Amendments on Report stage would need to be vested in our Chairman if undue duplication is to be avoided. This proposal, therefore, is to try again the upstairs procedure for the extension of available time. My noble friend who will wind up can spell out the details if it appears to meet the wishes of your Lordships. It may be that other more valuable suggestions will be advanced by others who are to take part in this discussion.
Let me end by saying this. If we are adequately to consider legislation and to ventilate the important issues of our time, I believe that some changes in our procedure will be inescapable. A readiness to experiment and change now may well help more fundamental changes for the future. I have learned during my membership of your Lordships' House to respect its potential. I believe that it has a future, and I hope all the more, therefore, that the debate on this Motion will prove productive.
Moved, That this House takes note of the increasing pressure on the time available for legislation and other business taken on the Floor of the House and would welcome consideration of steps which might be taken to alleviate it.—(Lord Beswick.)
4.6 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us this opportunity of discussing means whereby the House can try to cope with the mass of legislation which the Government are, quite unreasonably, expecting us to pass between Whitsun and the Summer Recess. This shows the good sense of the business management of this House, as opposed to the legislative madness of the Government business managers as a whole.
It is not just the Conservative Opposition who are worried by the spate of legislation and the limited time in which to discuss it. Noble Lords probably will have read the excellent article by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which appeared recently in the Spectator criticising the volume of legislation and the

707
ever-increasing number of restrictions imposed on our liberties. Only last Sunday the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—a Peer with whose views I seldom agree, though I certainly did on this occasion—was reported in the Observer as mounting a strong attack on the Government for bringing the legislative process into contempt. In particular, he criticised the rushing of Bills through both Houses in a very short time, and pointed to the harmful effect of this extreme speed on the drafting of Bills.
The noble Lord also expressed the opinion that it had reached almost catastrophic proportions, and in particular he cited the Companies Act and the Criminal Justice Act. The Liberal Benches, too, have not been entirely silent on this subject. The right honourable gentleman, the Member for Orkney and Shetland, described the guillotining of the Finance Bill and the Transport Bill as an abuse of Parliament—"not Fascism, but sheer incompetence", he called it.
The burden of all these complaints is that there is not only too much legislation, but too little time in which to consider it. Mr. Grimond's justifiably strong words about the guillotine should concern us in this House. In the case of the Finance Bill no doubt it will be considered by the Government that this is no concern of ours, because we normally respect the Commons' financial privilege and regularly refrain from going into Committee on such Bills. But the whole question of the use of the guillotine in the Commons (a process which I am happy to say has never been introduced here) is of vital concern to this House, especially in light of Lord Chorley's speech, because your Lordships traditionally, and I think quite rightly, take especial pains to give full discussion to those parts of a Bill guillotined in the House of Commons which did not have a full, or indeed any, airing because of the time table imposed.
The guillotine procedure is acknowledged by both Parties to be an occasional necessity in the Commons, but only for Bills which can subsequently be discussed and amended in the Second Chamber. It is quite monstrous and a denial of all democratic rights that not only should the Finance Bill be taken off the Floor of the House of Commons,
708
so that many of the experts are precluded from taking part in it, but also that this Bill, of all Bills—the Finance Bill—should be subject to guillotine. The Government know full well that your Lordships cannot, and will not, challenge the Commons' financial privilege; so this Bill, which affects us all intimately, may go substantially undiscussed in detail by Parliament. So far as I can ascertain, the Finance Bill has been guillotined only once before and that was in 1931, under the Premiership of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. That was a period in their history which I should have thought noble Lords opposite would have preferred to forget. Certainly, it can hardly be considered a good precedent.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, noble Lords liked him as a Prime Minister immediately afterwards, did they not?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Quite seriously, my Lords, I appeal to the Government to give us an undertaking to-day that they will never again guillotine any Bill which is incapable of amendment in this House. With regard to the guillotining of the Transport Bill, all I shall say at this moment is that a very large number of clauses and Schedules remain undiscussed in the Standing Committee in the Commons because of the guillotine, and the Minister of Transport has now tabled no fewer than 222 Amendments on the Report stage which cannot be fully discussed on the Floor of another place. This House will need to have ample time, if only to discuss those parts of the Transport Bill which have either not been scrutinised at all in the Commons or insufficiently scrutinised through lack of time.
I conclude this part of my speech by begging the Government in future, if they are still in power, to make every effort to regulate the flow of Bills between the two Houses. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has referred to this matter and has taken some credit because more Bills are starting in this House than started in it in the past. But that is only the beginning, and we have to go a good deal further in that direction. Possibly the most important step is to introduce fewer Bills, but I must admit I get the impression that the Government are petrified of having to fight a General Election, and are therefore trying to rush through

709
Parliament as many Bills as they possibly can. In some ways the real fault lies with the Government's Future Legislation Committee, of which I have no doubt the Leader of the House and/or the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, are members, for they must have foreseen the appalling congestion that was bound to arise when authorising the presentation of this great weight of legislation. Having said that, I think the Opposition are willing to co-operate with the managers of the business in this House to try to help them out of the legislative mess which the Government as a whole have got them into.
As I see it, there are four courses open. First, we can abandon our role of scrutinising legislation in detail; but that is a doctrine of despair which the House should reject, while recognising that the Government are pushing the House very nearly to a state of desperation. Secondly, we can examine on the Floor of the House every piece of legislation with the care and attention it deserves, and that implies the necessary quota of time for each stage and for decent intervals between stages. If we followed that course we should no doubt need to prolong our deliberations well into the next Session. Thirdly—and I am sure that in this particular Session this is what would be the most acceptable solution to the House as a whole—the Government should drop the Transport Bill altogether. But if, for some reason, they are not prepared to do that, we have, as a fourth alternative, to devise machinery for alleviating the pressure of business on the Floor of the House in the terms of the Motion which is before your Lordships to-day. As I say, if the Government are not prepared to adopt my third proposal then I think the fourth course is clearly what noble Lords should address their minds to, and I hope that many valuable suggestions will be thrown up during the course of this afternoon's debate.
Of the two categories of business, legislative and other, mentioned in the Motion, the legislative business is far the more important item in terms of time taken up on the Floor of the House. It is therefore worth examining that first, especially as the pressure in the weeks after Whitsun will come from legislation and not from other business. But before
710
doing so, I should like to make one point of general application. We should, I am sure, be extremely slow to adopt any form of time rules for either legislation or any other business in this House. We are a House which has hitherto prided itself on conducting its business by common sense and common control. If we started to introduce time rules, it would be a very dangerous precedent and might well lead, in all too short a time, to the rigid procedural arrangements which now obtain in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, suggested a plan for taking a Public Bill in Committee off the Floor of the House. I, for one, have considerable sympathy with that proposal and would welcome an experiment in that direction. I think it is potentially a most valuable procedural proposal for relieving the pressure on the Floor of the House. But we must be very careful not to reduce such proceedings to a second-class status. The proposal involves serious considerations, and the noble Lord has mentioned some of the difficulties. First, the question of the selection of Bills to go to such a Committee is obviously of the highest importance, and although the noble Lord is talking about only one at the moment, we may—assuming it is successful—do it with others. I take it that in every case there would be a Motion to refer each Bill to a Committee off the Floor of the House, because it is essential that the House as a whole should agree and not just the Party managers.
I can see that there might have been a case for sending the Theft Bill to such a Committee. It may well be that it will meet the convenience of noble Lords from Scotland that Scottish Bills should be taken off the Floor of the House on, say, Tuesdays and Thursdays and no other days. But on that I have no doubt they will express their opinion in due course. I have read in The Times that the Town and Country Planning Bill might be chosen for our first experiment. If so, it is important that the House should agree that that is the right type of Bill to go there.
Secondly, the question of the selection of Members, on which again the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, touched, is obviously vitally important. If such a Committee is to be fully effective it

711
must be open to any Lord who has something to contribute to go and sit in the Committee. Otherwise, one of the distinctive features of this House will be lost; namely, the attendance of the expert Peer whose special knowledge of a particular subject gives excellence to all our debates. I should therefore be opposed to any selection, and these Committees should be open to any Member of the House who chooses to go.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, would the noble Earl make it clear whether he is suggesting that the other Peers should be able not only to sit but also to vote?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I shall come on to voting in a moment, if I may. Thirdly, there is the question, on which again the noble Lord touched, of when the Committee is to sit. This is a very difficult dilemma, because if we sit in the morning there are obviously many Peers who have their own businesses to attend to and who would not be able to get to a Committee of the House. If, on the other hand, we sit in the afternoon, there will be the rival attractions of the Committee off the Floor and of the concurrent business in the House. On the whole, I myself am inclined to favour sitting from, say, 3 to 5.30 p.m. The House of Commons Standing Committee sits 2½ hours, I believe. This would give Peers the opportunity to sit in the House for Question Time and to attend the House for the latter part of the afternoon, after the Committee had risen.
Fourthly, my Lords, I think it is essential that there should be a sufficient interval between the conclusion of the Committee off the Floor of the House and the next stage of that Bill, which I take it would be Committee on Recommitment. It may well be found—in fact I think it is essential—that if there are to be Divisions on controversial Amendments, then either the consideration of these Amendments, or at least the voting on them, should be postponed until the Bill returns to the Floor of the House on Recommitment.
Fifthly, there is the question of publicity of the Committee proceedings off the Floor. It is essential that there should be no less publicity than that which is given to a Committee of the Whole House. That means, really, that Amendments to be dealt with by such
712
Committees must be circulated widely. In fact, they must receive the same treatment as Amendments moved on the Floor of the House.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would mind developing the point he made about the voting in such a Committee upstairs, because I do not think I quite followed it. We have tried before the experiment of sending a Bill to a Committee, and it did not work very well—though of course that is no reason for not trying it again. If we send a Bill upstairs, surely the Committee has to vote upstairs, and when the Bill comes down here, as it must, on Report stage, every Peer will be entitled to vote on any important Amendment. Is that not the way the system would have to work?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am not entirely sure of that, because it seems to me that if you are going to have any number of Peers—ranging from whatever is decided should be a quorum for the Committee up to virtually the whole House—going upstairs, the numbers are bound to vary so tremendously that it would be better, I should have thought, to postpone the consideration of any Amendment on which it is recognised there will be a disagreement, and that such Amendments should be taken on Recommitment on the Floor of the House and not, as my noble friend suggests, on Report. I think it is important that these controversial matters should be considered on Recommital; and although there might be some discussion on them upstairs, I do not think a final decision on them should be taken until the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House.
My Lords, I was talking about the publicity which should be given to the proceedings of a Committee upstairs. It seems to me that there must also be a full transcription of the proceedings, and that this must be given the same circulation as the OFFICIAL REPORT, either attached to it or as a separate document. But how it is circulated is, I think, merely a matter for consideration. In all these matters we must not forget the important question of the staffing of the House. Obviously, we must begin with a modest experiment. The noble Lord has wisely suggested one Bill, and

713
I suspect that that is about all we shall in fact be able to cope with during this Session. But we must think of the staff, not only the Clerk of Parliaments but also the Doorkeepers, the Printers and the Official Reporters—and I think that of all the staffing problems, which are acute, perhaps the most acute is that of the Reporters.
My Lords, so much for the Committee off the Floor of the House. Is there anything else that we might do to ease the legislative pressure on the House? Apart from better programming by the Government and self-restraint by Members of the House, I should say that there is really very little more that we ought to do. I think that if the Government do their part, then noble Lords should do their part, too, by trying to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, to keep their speeches short. If I may, I would say here that a really good example should be set from the Government Benches. I know only too well that Ministers are continually pressed by their Departments to say a great many things on a large number of subjects. It is not always easy to resist one's own Department, but perhaps Ministers could give priority to the House on some occasions rather than to their own Departments.
My Lords, I have one suggestion to make from which I myself do not think any evil consequences would flow, but which would undoubtedly need legislation. However, it may be that there are a lot of snags in it which I have not seen, and that therefore it may not be entirely practicable. If we receive a Bill from another place and it is read here a first time one Parliamentary month before the end of the Summer Session, then we should be able to continue consideration of that Bill up to the beginning of the Christmas Recess. In practice, that would mean that Bills which are received here by approximately the beginning of July we could carry over, in this House only, until the next Session, and consider between the opening of Parliament and the Christmas Recess. I think it is essential that we should receive these Bills a clear working month before Prorogation. Otherwise, we might be floundering in a mass of Bills at the end of July, and the last state could well be worse than the first.
714
I now turn to consider what savings could be made on the Floor of the House on business other than legislation, and here it is very much more difficult, I think, to offer any constructive suggestions without at the same time introducing dangerous restrictions on the rights of Peers to speak, to move Motions and to ask Questions. I reject utterly, as I said earlier, any imposition of time rules, and I feel sure the House is capable of regulating its own affairs without them.
I should like to make a plea that Members of the House should use their traditional methods to keep order. At Question Time to-day we had a number of noble Lords on one side of the House shouting, "Question! Question!" to a noble Lord on another side of the House, and I was frankly disappointed that there were no similar cries from all round the House. This surely must be taken outside Party politics entirely. It is not right because it is my noble friend who is speaking: and wrong because it is a noble Lord opposite. If a noble Lord is breaking the Rules of this Howe, the House itself must, as a body, say "No". I feel that some of the older Members are a trifle diffident about this; and some of the newer Members may not know exactly what our traditions are. But I think that every one of your Loidships is aware of the case I have just mentioned.
In the case of Starred Questions particularly, I think there is a tendency for them to go on when most of us feel they have been going on quite long enough; and if noble Lords would shout, as they have every right to do, "Next Question!", and would continue to shout, "Next Question!", then I think we might get on rather faster. But this also requires the co-operation of individual Peers. I have noticed, particularly in the case of those noble Lords who come from another place, that, because the House calls them to Order, they feel that it is their right and duty to stand up and disregard the House. This is wrong. The House is entirely the master of its own order; but it is up to the individual Members also to be prepared to accept the House's ruling.
4.30 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for

715
introducing this Motion. At the same time, may I make it clear that any comments I have to express are my own opinions, my own personal point of view. I think this is essentially an occasion on which noble Lords should make their own individual contributions. I hope to be constructively critical. This is certainly a very topical subject; in fact, to-day's debate almost broke out yesterday in the discussion on the Countryside Bill. If I may say so, the Motion, although wide in terms, is modest in its wording. Having regard to the congestion in the House of Commons and the prospect which lies before us in this House in June and July, I think the word "suffocation" might be more appropriate than the words "increasing pressure".
My Lords, the problem is certainly a real one; but, unfortunately, in debating it we are under a number of handicaps. The questions which we should be asking—and which, in fact, were asked by the noble Earl—are these. Why is there so much legislation? Is it absolutely necessary? Is it imposing too great a strain on our Parliamentary system? I think that is one of the root causes of the trouble; but it seems to me to be somewhat outside the scope of the Motion now being debated. The second handicap is that we are debating without any official knowledge of the proposed reform of the composition and powers of this House; we have to speak this afternoon on the assumption that we are unaware of the changes that may take place. Therefore, it seems to me that any suggestions that are put forward must be of a somewhat temporary nature. Thirdly, I believe the pressure on our time table cannot possibly be solved by this House alone. The phasing of the legislative programme must largely depend upon the decisions of Ministers as to whether a Bill should be first introduced in another place or in this House and also, ultimately, on the wishes of another place. The legislative programme is not entirely in our own hands.
I understand that in 1945 a considerable number of Bills—I am told that it was 40 per cent.—were introduced first in this Chamber. Possibly we have an example there that might be followed. It does not appear to have been followed in recent years. It would help consider-
716
ably in this House if there were better phasing of legislation which came before us. Therefore, I think it is clear that the pressure can be alleviated only by co-operation with another place. It may be that that will not he possible until the reform of this Chamber has been decided. But the debate to-day is clearly subject to these limitations. I am quite willing—as I am sure are my colleagues—to consider any proposals and suggestions carefully; but we must look at them critically. I do not regard myself as, by nature, conservative, but I believe that any changes must be carefully examined; and that, presumably, is the purpose of this debate.
My Lords, there is one proposal which has been put forward from time to time that was not mentioned by the two previous speakers. I think it is, perhaps, worth touching on. It is the proposal that we should elect a Speaker with powers similar to those of the Speaker of the House of Commons. The great authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons is an essential feature of the Parliamentary system. That is widely recognised; but it does not necessarily follow that this would be appropriate for a Second Chamber. Having served under the procedures of both Houses I am persuaded that we should not gain any material benefit from having a Speaker with powers similar to those of the Speaker in another place. I am definitely of that opinion.
I realise that at Question Time, for example, some noble Lords stray from the original Question and perhaps, from time to time, are out of order. It may be that we lose ten minutes or more because the supplementary Questions go somewhat wide. On the other hand, I notice that, with rare exceptions, great courtesy in the matter of giving way is shown in this House when two or three noble Lords wish to ask supplementary Questions. I wonder what would happen if we had a Speaker. It would be the Speaker's duty not only to keep Members of the House in order but also to call the next Question. If it were known that if one did not get the supplementary Question in quickly "the chopper" might come down and one might not have the chance of asking it, I think the atmosphere might become much more competitive. If noble Lords were to keep popping up and down trying to

717
catch the Speaker's eye, the character of this Chamber would change—and it would not necessarily change for the better.
As to the matter of points of Order during debates, if there were a Speaker it may be that it would save the Leader of the House some embarrassment. But it would only require two or three Members of this House who regarded themselves as experts on the Rules of Order to turn the whole proceedings into a battle of wits between the Members and the Speaker. We could easily take up half-an-hour or more on points of order. I do not think the solution lies in appointing a Speaker comparable to the Speaker in the House of Commons.
I would throw out this suggestion. I wonder whether it would be worth while studying the functions of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons. I am thinking of those functions quite distinct from those of the Speaker, mainly the power to decide whether a matter has been adequately discussed on Committee and whether it should be debated again on Report stage and, in this Chamber, again on Third Reading. We might perhaps look into that and consider whether time is taken up unduly in debating points on more than one occasion. I merely throw that out as a suggestion.
But we shall still be faced with a tendancy for Governments to try to get business through without adequate time for discussion. That brings one to the question of Standing Committees and to the question of whether it would help if some Bills were taken through their Committee stage elsewhere than in the Chamber. A number of questions arise from this. Most of them were considered by the Procedure Committee, but it is right and proper that they should be asked again. The first and obvious question—and one which has been mentioned by the noble Earl—is whether the meeting of a Committee would be in the morning or in the afternoon. I see practical objections to morning sittings. Those with expert knowledge and experience might not be available in the morning. On the other hand, if the Committee sits in the afternoon it means that the Committee and the House are sitting contemporaneously. In either case, there is this problem of selection of members to sit,
718
which I think is even more difficult in this House than in the House of Commons.
There is, of course, a dirt notion between opposed Private Bills on the one hand and Government tills and Private Members' Bills on the other hand. Selection is not at all a simple matter. During the period that I was in another place, I had the responsibility for about six years of nominating members of my Party for service on Select Committees and on Standing Committees dealing with the Committee stage of Bills, and it was not at all an easy task. It is very difficult in respect of a small Party, because there are not enough Members to go round, and it is difficult for a large Party because there are so many different groupings and shades of opinion to be taken into account.
My Lords, if I may turn aside for a moment, I recollect that for years there was this strong plea for sending the Finance Bill to a Committee upstairs, and it was regarded as a very radical reform. But from what I have seen, I do not think that it has been entirely a success. I am not thinking just of the physical conditions. It seemed to me, as an observer, that it is not just a case of getting experts on the Committee; it is also a case of trying to satisfy the different political groupings within a Party, and one does not necessarily get the best Committee. Furthermore, so far as appointing experts is concerned, all too often a Bill is more than one Bill; it covers a number of different subjects. The Finance Bill is really several Bills rolled into one. The Land Commission Bill was really two Bills—I think that originally it was intended to be two Bills, and for reasons best known to the Government it was incorporated into one Bill. The Transport Bill is really several Bills.
It may be argued that only Bill is not involving Party political controversy would be sent to a Committee, but if a Bill is entirely uncontroversial no great problem of time arises. The Bill could be dealt with on the Floor of the House. If, on the other hand, there are differences of view, surely there is a case for a cross-section of the whole House being represented on the Committee as well as persons with special qualifications, and this is by no means a simple matter to achieve.

719
After all, there are at least four groups in this House to be considered—Government, Opposition, Liberals and the Cross-Benches. I said "at least" because there are the right reverend Prelates and the Law Lords, and this becomes particularly important if there is to be voting on the Committee.
I listened with great interest to what the noble Earl said about voting; that if there are differences of view, presumably the Committee would wish to vote; and that if there is to be voting, there ought to be a fair cross-section of the House on the Committee. I do not think it a sufficient answer to say that it could be dealt with on Report. There is the other suggestion, that certain Members should be nominated for the Committee and that anyone who wished could attend, or, alternatively, that the Committee should be composed of those who desire to attend. But what exactly will happen? In those circumstances who will vote on the Committee stage?
I can foresee the possibility of members of the Government being very anxious to carry a particular clause or to throw out a particular Amendment, and, as the time approached for a Division, going round and urging noble Lords, who might perhaps be in the Chamber, or in the Library, to go and vote in the Committee. If that were to happen, it might bring the Committee stage into disfavour and I think that the nominated members, the regular Committee members, would soon object. The only solution would appear to be that where there was a difference of view no vote should be taken and the matter should be referred to the House. I can see that possible line of argument, but I am wondering whether, in those circumstances, there would be a great deal of saving of time. I assume that if the Committee unanimously favoured some change, that would be all right, but if there was a difference of view this would be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. And if that were to happen I think that we should not really gain a great deal in time.
In any case it means that the House and the Committee would be functioning at the same time. I am very willing that we should try out any experiment, but let us do so with our eyes open. If I have expressed the need for some caution
720
it is because I have another reform very much in mind. I am most anxious to see Select Committees or Standing Committees of both Houses set up on, say, defence, foreign affairs and the economy of the country. In this House there is a great reservoir of talent, and I do not think that full use is made of it. It is true that noble Lords take part in debates, and one hopes that their views percolate through to the right quarter. But I feel that we could make more use of their services if they served on Joint Committees of both Houses. With the limited amount of manpower that is available, I do not wish to see too great a burden placed on Members who are serving in this House and on Committees, and who may therefore be unable to attend the Joint Committees which I think would be so valuable.
So far as the timetable is concerned, perhaps a little more thought might be given to making the best use of the time that is available. Could we not get a little nearer to a regular sitting from 2.30 to 10 o'clock, rather than sitting to midnight on one day and rising at 5.30 p.m. on another? But I come back to my general observation, that this Motion, though producing, I hope, a very valuable debate, leaves the main issues unresolved; namely, the sum total of legislation and the need for co-operation with the Commons. Without this co-operation I do not think there can be any simple or satisfactory solution.
4.46 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for providing an opportunity for what is, in effect, a dialogue on the problem of legislative pressure which faces our House to-day. I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, the Opposition Chief Whip, and I must confess that I was most interested in what he had to say about the guillotine. He said that the Government should use the guillotine only, as was done by previous Conservative Governments, when the Bill on which the guillotine was to be used was capable and likely to be amended when it reached the House of Lords. I sat in Opposition in another place for at least 18 years when there were Conservative Governments in

721
power and the guillotine was used on many occasions during that time, and quite properly so—as the noble Earl himself said, all Governments make use of the guillotine when necessary—but I am bound to say that I cannot remember a Conservative Government ever giving as their excuse the reason that the noble Earl gave, that the Bill could be amended when it reached the House of Lords. I think that when we are in power we are entitled to use the guillotine, even if we know that when the Bill gets to the House of Lords the majority there is opposed to a Labour Government. On the other hand, I was more in agreement with him when he talked about the congestion—
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask whether he is saying that the Labour Government should use the guillotine to ensure that this House is not able to amend a Bill? In other words, to avoid any discussion in another place on a Bill which this House cannot amend?
LORD ROWLEY: No, my Lords, what I am saying is that the Labour Government uses the guillotine for the same reasons as Conservative Governments used it, in order to avoid unnecessary obstruction on the part of the Opposition of the day. That has always been the reason why the guillotine has been used; it is the reason why the guillotine was introduced in the early part of this century.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: But not on the Finance Bill, my Lords. As I said, it has been used only once before on a Finance Bill.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, if the noble Earl looks at Hansard to-morrow, he will find that what he said about the use of the guillotine was not restricted to its use on the Finance Bill. I was taking up his charge that the Labour Government were using the guillotine much more widely than previous Conservative Governments have done and for different reasons. What I am saying is that both Conservative and Labour Governments have used it for the same purpose. In my opinion no Government will get rid of the guillotine in the other place, any more than they will get rid of
722
the closure. I am of the opinion that neither should be used in your Lordships' House. That is not in accordance with the tradition of the House: and although I am a comparative newcomer I have seen enough to realise that there is no need for either guillotine or closure at the present time.
I support the proposal of my noble friend Lord Beswick for a Committee as an experiment. I understand that both the noble Earl who speaks for that Conservative Party and the noble Lord who speaks for the Liberal Party are in agreement with that proposal. I do not know whether it will suffice to get us over this congestion. We have, for instance, the Transport Bill coming up, with 148 clauses, 50 of which were not discussed in another place because of the guillotine, and there were something like 2,000 Amendments to the Bill in another place. It is one of the largest Bills of recent years. I am not sure that the proposed Committee is going to have much effect in relieving this congestion. I hope it does.
I should like to put forward an idea in this dialogue, because I see this as a dialogue in which we can put forward our personal ideas without regard to whether they are acceptable to either Front Bench. What is sacrosanct about ending a Session at the end of October? Why not extend it to the end of November? It is difficult to accept this sudden splurge of legislation coming to, your Lordships' House to be dealt with in June and July. We shall have not only the Transport Bill but also the Prices and Incomes Bill, which is extremely controversial. It is difficult to accept that we are going to be able to get through all the stages of these Bill; without having to sit very late on a good many days of the eight weeks covering June and July. I would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should consider extending the Session until the end of November. That would make a great difference towards relieving congestion.
I was also interested in the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about phasing legislative Bills. Would it not be possible at the beginning of a Session for the usual channels to meet and agree on some sort of planned timetable? I know that the Legislative Committee of the Cabinet

723
may not know at the beginning of a Session all the Bills that are going to be brought forward, but I do not believe any joint planning takes place. I am talking about planning between the usual channels in both Houses. I am suggesting that they would need to have joint meetings so that legislation could be streamlined from another place to your Lordships' House and, if necessary, from your Lordships' House to another place. If this does take place, I should like my noble friend the Leader of the House to tell us. It is something that may well be considered if we are going to begin to handle efficiently this great mass of legislation, which I think is inevitable in these days. The noble Earl opposite said that there is too much legislation. It may well be, but apart from the Party approach, which Bills are unnecessary?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: The Transport Bill.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, that is away from what I call the dialogue and gets on to the basis of Party politics. It is difficult to say that any Bill is unnecessary, because the Government of the day would not introduce a Bill for the fun of the thing. They introduce it because they consider it essential to deal with whatever problem it is intended to remedy. We are not going to get very far by saying that this Government, or any other Government, should ration their legislation, though fundamentally the amount of legislation should have some relation to the effectiveness of the legislative machinery in this House and in another place.
That brings me to another point. If we expect the Government, in conjunction with the usual channels, to rationalise the legislative programme, we in this House must do a little rationalisation as well. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about the undesirability of a Speaker. Certainly at this moment I would accept that view. There can be no changes like that unless there are major reforms of your Lordships' House. After all, the collective responsibility (as it is called) of this House in respect of the enforcement of Standing Orders and the maintenance of order among noble Lords, goes back centuries.
724
Only 50 or 60 years ago the House met at half-past four and usually rose at half-past six. There was no need for a Speaker and Standing Orders dealing with all the points that arise in a Chamber like the other place. But we have already moved away from that situation to a great extent. While I agree that we must not have anything in the nature of a Speaker in the present situation, if and when there are drastic reforms in your Lordships' House it might be (I put it no higher than that) necessary to consider some change in the Presiding Officer of this Chamber. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes here day after day and sits for hours. He has many other great responsibilities of State. Is it not possible to have some sort of modification, even an alternative, to the requirement which at present compels the noble and learned Lord to sit on the Woolsack for so many hours a day so many days a week? We are now talking about a five-day week. In my view, even if we retain the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as our Presiding Officer, something ought to be done to assist him.
The same thing would apply to the Committees. We have one Chairman of Committees. Is there not a case for having one or more Deputy Chairmen, with adequate remuneration, not merely calling upon noble Lords to volunteer for two hours at a time, no matter how many hours we sit? In the other place there is the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, who are both paid, and I see no reason at all why we should not have a Deputy Chairman who is given proper remuneration.
What about the powers of the Chairman? We have no Standing Orders which permit him to interfere when Amendments are tabled, say, in Committee, and rejected, and the same Amendments are tabled on Report stage. Surely that is not justifiable. Should we not give power to the Chairman of Committees, with assistance and advice, to prevent the same Amendment which has been rejected in Committee being proposed on the Report stage? Reference has been made by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, to the fact that sometimes noble Lords intervene two, three and four times in one Committee discussion. Is that desirable?

725
If we expect the Government to streamline their legislation and the number of Bills, surely we ought to streamline our proceedings and make them as efficient and effective as possible. I throw that out merely as a suggestion.
I would even go further and say (I realise that it is not strictly relevant to this discussion) that we have at the beginning of a Session the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party and 40 or 50 Members of the other House who come and stand at these iron gates. Why could we not provide them for the State Opening of the new Session with these three Cross-Bench seats? There is no question of any breach of privilege, because we have diplomats sitting on those Benches for that afternoon.
LORD CARRINGTON: It might make the occasion more comfortable for the Prime Minister, but I doubt whether it would make this House more efficient.
LORD ROWLEY: He would be accompanied by the Leader of the Opposition. Does the same apply to him? I am merely ventilating ideas that I think must be turning in all our minds, whether or not we are completely in agreement. We have the short-term problem of having to make our Committees more efficient; and then we have the longterm problem of how we are going to conduct our proceedings later on, as and when we become reformed.
Meantime, I would say again that I think this discussion this afternoon can only serve a useful purpose. There will be many ideas put over which may or may not be accepted in various parts of the House, but I think the sum total of them all will be for the benefit of the House. I have now completed two years as a Member of your Lordships' House, and I have come to the conclusion (I was always a bi-cameralist) that there is a vital need in the life of our community for a Second Chamber with revisionary responsibilities, and I believe that we can improve the efficiency of this House without impairing all its traditions.
5.4 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for placing this Motion on the Order Paper. To meet the situation to which Lord Shackleton's Motion
726
draws attention there are some things which the Government could do an3 some things which we ourselves could do.
Let me start with the Government. First, the Government should try to curb the torrent of legislation which threatens to overwhelm Parliament and which Parliament is not being allowed adequately to examine. This has been said before and I do not intend to embroider further upon it. There is one way of solving the problem, but it would be a mcst undesirable way. That way would be to proceed by enabling legislation, Leaving the details to be filled in by Order. That system is all very well, and indeed very proper, in technical cases such as, for example, the Food and Drugs Act, where the principles of the Act are applied in detail by regulations which are adequately scrutinised before being laid before Parliament. But, since such Orders cannot be amended, there would be the strongest objection to matters of real substance being thus passed into law. That way tyranny lies.
Secondly, the Government should see that more Bills are started in this House. A good deal has been done already in this direction, and for that we are grateful; but at present we are underemployed in the early part of the Session and intolerably overburdened towards the end. Thirdly, the Government should see, so far as they can, that our work in this House is more evenly distributed from day to day. To sit until after midnight one day and to rise soon after 5 p.m. the next day is not very good management. One may have full sympathy with the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip in the problems they have to face; and they do the best they can. It is clearly, in the nature of things, difficult to foresee how this House will conduct itself; but I should have thought that some improvement could be made possible in this sphere.
Now as to ourselves. We should be ready, as indeed we now are from time to time, to sit four or even five days a week, if this is required to get business through with reasonable convenience to Members of the House. A three-days-a-week Chamber is not something that we ought to try to maintain. Secondly, there are a number of ways in which we could usefully exercise self-restraint: for example, by resolving not to speak unless

727
we really have something to say, and, if we do speak, to speak with reasonable brevity. This applies as much to Second Reading debates as it does to Wednesday Motions. A dozen or so speeches on a Wednesday is all right, but if we have 20 or 30 speakers, no matter how important the issue, I am afraid that experience shows that more means worse, and much tedious repetition.
Similarly, we could pay more attention than we do to the Standing Order on Starred Questions, Standing Order No. 32, which says:
"Such Questions are asked for information only; no debate may take place; and supplementary questions must be confined to the subject of the original Question."
That Standing Order is breached every day. It is far too often disregarded. We tend to have miniature debates outside the original Questions. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, when he says that we ought to speak up and call, "Next Question" if we find that the Standing Order is being disregarded. It is fair to say, I think, that Ministers themselves are sometimes to blame in this respect, because some of them spread themselves unduly in their Answers to supplementary questions and thus open up the ambit of the Question.
Another Standing Order that is frequently breached is Standing Order No. 28, which says that no Lord other than the mover in reply is to speak twice on any Motion, except in Committee. There is thus a tendency, which we have seen quite recently, to turn the Report stage of a Bill into a second Committee stage. There is perhaps some excuse for this, since the Government, as has recently happened, have encouraged this tendency when they have allowed insufficient time between Committee and Report stage to consider new Amendments brought forward at short notice. But in general we ought to try to keep the Report stage what it is, and not overdo it with too many speeches. We could help to save time, also, if we refrained, except on special occasions, from moving all over again, on Report, Amendments which have been rejected after full debate and a Division in Committee of the Whole House. That, I think, is an abuse.
Another practice which involves longer debates than should be the rule is the
728
practice of drafting Unstarred Questions in wide and comprehensive terms more suitable for a Wednesday Motion than for an Unstarred Question. An Unstarred Question should be of limited scope.
My Lords, I have indicated some of the things which either the Government or we ourselves could do in order to help to relieve the pressure. But there is one major change of procedure which it would be well, I think, to consider. It has already been brought forward, in my view quite rightly, in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick; and although the Procedure Committee some time ago reported against it, it certainly is worth looking at again. There are some Bills, technical and perhaps politically non-controversial, the Committee stage of which could, if the House agreed, be taken in Select Committee upstairs. The Theft Bill has been mentioned as one possible example.
Here I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, when he says there would have to be an express decision of the House before any Bill were thus committed to a Select Committee upstairs. That procedure could, I think, apply both to Private Members' Bills and to Government Bills, and they would, I should think, be the kind of Bills which, if taken in Committee of the Whole House, would not in practice involve the intervention of very many Members of the House.
The selection of the membership of Select Committees is an extremely difficult question. I should have thought that the members of the Select Committee should be selected for each Bill at an actual meeting of the Committee of Selection. I do not know whether that would work, but the Procedure Committee would be in a good position to review the situation each time and find the best composition for the Select Committee. May I be forgiven for saying that I think there ought always to be Cross Bench Members on Select Committees? It is not essential, I suggest—though perhaps I am wrong here—that the Government should always have a majority in a Select Committee as a whole, even perhaps for a Government Bill. And we ought to remember that under Standing Order No. 58 any Lord, though not of the Committee, would not

729
be excluded from sitting in a Select Committee, though he would not be able to vote. That point has, I think, been raised. A Peer should have liberty to attend any Select Committee and speak if he wished, provided he did not vote. It would certainly open up the Committee and allow those with a special interest, although not members of the Committee, to take part in the discussion. So I think, going back to the question of procedure, perhaps the procedure in the Select Committee for the Committee stage of a Bill would be modelled so far as possible on that observed in Commitees of the Whole House.
Voting, again, is an extremely difficult question, and I do not think I have any solution to suggest. I would take it that Bills after passage through a Select Committee would not always be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House—not always—though there would no doubt be occasions, and a good number of occasions, when this would be called for, especially if important matters of controversy should arise. And I agree with the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, that in that event there should be a Division in the Committee of the Whole House, no matter what had happened in the Select Committee. But my mind is not made up on this question. There is a real difficulty. I have no doubt that we could find a solution to it. So for all those reasons, my Lords, I am very much in favour of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that we should try an experiment; pick out one Bill this Session and see how it works.
It is matters like these that we ought to have in mind as the days pass. If, as many of us sincerely hope, agreement is reached on the reform of your Lordships' House, and if your Lordships' House acquires new qualities as a working Chamber, a review of its procedure will be part of that operation, and to this I am quite sure the present debate should make a useful contribution.
5.14 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I shall keep you for only a few minutes, but I felt that I must say a few words on this subject. Having now heard the speech of the noble Lord, the Government Chief Whip, I am able to give my views. I am firmly of the opinion that no change
730
should be made in our procedure prior to the reform of this House. It is the undoubted tradition of the House that what appears to be uncontroversial will suddenly, on the Floor of the House, become very controversial to the House as a whole. May I quote as a simple example a small Bill which I piloted through this House? It was called the Pharmacy Bill. It seemed to be very non-controversial; it seemed to be quite simple. But after the Second Reading, when we got to Committee stage, we had one of the biggest votes that we had had in the House for quite a long time. This decided me to withdraw my support for the Bill. I mention this only because it seems to me that if we go upstairs at present, as we are constituted, we might lose a great deal a that feeling of the House for any Bill which comes before us.
It is impossible to know, prior to consideration of a Bill, how many noble Lords will wish to speak and vote on its Committee stage, and it would be impossible for a great number to congregate upstairs. For this reason, I think it would be inevitable that by usage the Committee stage would take on the form of a Committee stage in another place; and I understand from a number of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place that that has not been an unqualified success. I fully realise the difficulties of the noble Lord; responsible for business. But with a flood of legislation, most of it highly controversial, being presented to this House, I should be sorry to see any change at the moment. Maybe when the reform of the House is fully put before your Lordships the matter may solve itself, but before that I believe it would be dangerous to make a change, as in many cases changes of this sort cannot be reconsidered. I believe that at the moment we must soldier on, and if we accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who has just spoken, about our speeches, our interventions and our Questions, I believe we can save a great many minutes, perhaps half hours, in each Sitting. I feel sure that this is the way we should proceed at the moment, and when the time comes to reform your Lordships' House we can then take everything in one stride rather than in small pieces.
5.18 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I hope we may be able to-day not only to be grateful, as I am sure we all are, to the Leader of the House for having given us the opportunity to debate this subject, but also to look at this matter a little more broadly than the rather narrow terms of the actual Motion suggest. It strikes me nowadays that the whole machine of Parliamentary administrative government and management is creaking badly under an increasing burden, not only in this country but in other countries too. If I were asked, speaking personally, to explain the very odd results—because they were very odd results—of some recent by-elections and local government elections, I should say that the people of the country were distrusting the machine and finding themselves too far removed from it. We can all form our own opinions about a matter of that sort.
About the time when this present Chamber was built on the burnt ruins of another, the province of the Government was thought to be not to interfere too much, and since that time there has been an increasing pressure on Governments to do more and more. This is not to any major extent a matter of Party politics. I agree that the more progressive Parties, such as my own, have been more susceptible to the pressure, and to that extent more democratic; but when we are told that this Bill or that Bill ought not to be introduced, the question that seems to me to be put by some of your Lordships is, which Party has introduced it? The general view seems to be, "If it is my Party which has introduced it, that is all right; if it is the Labour Party then it ought not to have been introduced".
I would put a rather different question. What is the opinion of the people about this? Transport, for instance, and the integration—to use a rather hackneyed word—of road and rail transport has been before the public of this country for years. It has been discussed in another place until one became almost sick at some of the catch phrases that were used. But there is no question whatever that people felt that there was something very wrong about it and they wanted something to be done. Such people were not confined to my Party; there were prominent Conservative politicians—there still
732
are—saying that British Rail is one enormous mistake and does nothing but incur debt. I do not agree with the view, but it is an indication that something or other ought to be done, even in their view, about the transport of this country.
Would one expect anything else? Is there any modern country where a similar problem in regard to transport is not occurring? I cannot speak for Luxembourg, but in most parts of Europe, and in the United States of America most certainly, it is occurring, and I should have thought it was a necessary consequence of the changes in science and technology which have led to the use of motor vehicles—different motor vehicles and in different circumstances. To say that the Government ought not to introduce the Transport Bill now appears to put forward a claim that what should or should not be introduced ought to be decided, not by the wishes of the people but by whether it can be got through the House of Lords in time.
The short answer to that is that if it cannot be got through the House of Lords in time it is about time the House of Lords had a look at itself and had not its head but its Constitution examined. It is really absurd. The reason why the Finance Bill has been sent upstairs in another place is perfectly clear to anyone who has had as much to do with it as I, and possibly some others of your Lordships, have had. It becomes extremely technical and boring, and in practice there is only a small number of people who sit through it and work on it. There is always the question whether the lawyers should be put on the Committee to examine it upstairs or those with particular constituency interests. I remember one stout trade unionist who had a powder puff factory in his constituency. He made the same speech about powder puffs year after year. It interested him, and no doubt it interested his constituents, but it did not interest anybody else. I should have thought it a worthwhile experiment to try it out.
What was feared, and what has in fact happened about the Finance Bill, is that the Opposition would use the opportunity to block it as far as they could. I quite appreciate that every decent Opposition, including Oppositions in this House, do their best to block the Government's business, but one has to arrange one's

733
affairs so that they cannot do it successfully; and that is the question we have to consider here to-day.
Individually all noble Lords I have met are quite charming; collectively they are like the curate's egg, better in some parts than in others; but I think constitutionally they are totally absurd and indefensible. You really must realise that this is not just the opinion of a fanatic; it is the opinion of a fanatic nowadays to defend the House of Lords as it is. It is all very well to talk about tradition, but has any other country in the world got a House like this, and would any other country in the world want a House like this, and is not that question sufficient?
Of course we have to face reform, but meanwhile, if I may say so, the Government are quite right to give us this opportunity to consider the rather narrower question of what we should do about saving the time of the House. Your Lordships are very prodigal of it. We have the most peculiar tribal dances over unopposed Bills, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gets up from one place and says something and moves back again and says something else. This goes on three or four times, and everybody in the House knows perfectly well that nothing else will happen and that it means nothing whatever. As for the tribal dance when noble Lords are introduced into this House—well, perhaps any further comment would be superfluous, and in any case that does not take up as much time as the others.
The Rules of Procedure in this House seem to me to be fantastic. There is no one in the Chair in a position to call any Member to order, but the House is supposed to do it. The short answer is that it does not do it, and one has only to listen to the proceedings in order to realise the amount of time that is wasted. People say the same thing over and over again. They introduce the same Amendment, or a similar Amendment to the same broad point, not once but three times in the course of a Bill. I listened to the Countryside Bill at intervals, and this was taking up an interminable amount of the time of the whole House. Then there was the Theft Bill. That Bill had some very technical questions in it, almost entirely legal questions; yet it was discussed again and
734
again and again in the presence of the whole House.
If noble Lords want to shorten the business of the full House I suggest that we must have Committees, and if we are going to have Committees and to use them, as I suggest they should be used, to get through legislation more quickly and—forgive me!—more efficiently, then it is perfectly clear that the Committees must proceed more or less on the same lines as a House of Commons Committee would proceed now, with a Chairman having the power of selection. And when the Bill, having been through Committee, comes back to this House on Report, there should be a power of selection exercised over the Amendments made by the Committee.
I remember very well in another place going through a long and arduous Committee about the last Rent Bill introduced by the then Conservative Government. It was a highly contentious Bill. I think we took every major point in Committee, including that of whether the Scots should have a separate Bill of their own. We took a good long time about it and we were pretty frank with one another in our discussions. I was leading for the Opposition, and afterwards I had to go to the Speaker and say to him, "Look, if you are going to adopt what I know is the usual practice and refuse, on Report, any Amendment that hay been discussed in Committee, there will be nothing left to discuss". He, exceptionally, allowed us to introduce a few major points again on Report, but the general rule of another place—and I suggest it is an inevitable rule, if you are going to save time—is that a matter which has been discussed in Committee is not selected by the Speaker for discussion again on Report. I do not see how you can do other than that. If you start going to Committee and then leave the Bill open to come back t) the House and have the same points raised, where will there be any saving in time? I very much doubt whether there will be any saving at all. I should have thought there was no way out the difficulty but to adopt something very close to the Commons system in that respect.
Another thing that frightens me is this. I am really terrified of the idea of having

735
a Committee upstairs which has been appointed, say, by a Committee of Selection, and for it being then open for any noble Lord to go up to the Committee and take part in the proceedings, and presumably to go away again afterwards. One of the features of this House is that there are a great many special interests occasionally openly represented in it. I think that happened over the Pharmacy Bill. We get noble Lords appearing on a point of particular interest to them and taking part in the proceedings, and then going away again. They would not have heard what had happened before. They would not know what the Bill was all about, unless they had read it more carefully than in the circumstances one could expect them to do. I suggest that a Committee is a Committee and must be kept as one, and that you cannot make it work without a power of selection.
I have finished with Standing Committees. I want to say a word about another matter. The discussion to-day is not to be confined to legislation but concerns other matters, too. I think your Lordships often have some excellent discussions. In the Commons there are at present 14 Select Committees, and there are I think 14 sub-committees of those Committees, and some of them are closely concerned with matters which your Lordships would, I suggest, find extremely interesting. There are, for instance, Committees on education and science, and another on science and technology. There is a great deal of experience available in both those fields, and a great deal of knowledge, in your Lordships' House. I do not for a moment rule out—in fact I think it is well worth considering—a Joint Committee of the two Houses on subjects of this sort. There is another Committee on agriculture. I may point out that the science and technology Committee, which is fairly new, has already produced four sub-committees which appear to be working very hard, and it is chaired by the same honourable Member who is the Chairman of the very useful Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. There is really something to be done on the lines of appointing Select Committees of this character, thereby saving the time of your Lordships' House by getting discussions conducted by those who are particularly interested in them and whose
736
views, whether expressed there or anywhere else, are likely to carry considerable weight with the responsible Government of the day.
Lastly, there remain the Scots and the Welsh. It is not true to say that the Scottish Grand Committee does not deal with legislation, as somebody said, I think inadvertently. In fact it does. It deals with the principle of a Bill, with the Second Reading as it were, and it also deals very fully in Committee with estimates. It amounts, in fact, to a very large measure of Scottish self-government, and there may be something to be said for having this Committee sitting in Edinburgh. I have heard the suggestion mooted. But whether that is so or not, surely Scottish business could, whether in conjunction with the other place or independently here, be treated primarily by the Scots. I am very ignorant when it comes to Bills about sewerage in Scotland, and I suspect that other people are, too; though one tries to find out about it. It would be rather a good thing, I should have thought, in these days, given some very odd performances in elections, for the Scots to be given not only more freedom but the appearance of more freedom.
The Welsh are a different matter. They have the same system of law as we have. There is no Welsh Standing Committee, and although a Committee is set up in each Session of Parliament its scope is much smaller than that of the Scottish Committee.
I have said all I want to, but may I put this point?—and perhaps your Lordships will take it from me that I should not say it if I did not really mean it. I feel that at the moment in this world of ours the whole business of Government and administration is having a very heavy burden put upon it; and that one result of this burden is that people do not understand what is being done, what the people whom they have elected to represent them are doing, and in the result they get a sense of disgruntlement and frustration. That, I should have thought, is contrary to the wishes and feelings of all of us who have the progress and good fortune of our own country at heart. I should have thought it was vital for us to try to make our instruments of Government not only better but more comprehensible. It really is too much to

737
expect people, in this Year of Grace, to accept this House, with its hereditary element, its very curious mixture of other elements, its quite remarkable Rules—of absence of Rules—of conduct, and its lack of chairmanship and order throughout its proceedings, as an efficient part of a modern Legislature, accountable not to your Lordships, not to the other place, but, if it is to be part of the Legislature, to the people of the country. Otherwise, we shall get a slowly growing boiling indignation in this country that will lead us to some of the troubles we have seen in France lately.
5.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I must confess that I did at first hesitate very much whether to trouble your Lordships at all to-day when there is a long list of speakers who wish to take part in to-day's discussion; and indeed the wording, if I may say so, of Lord Shackleton's Motion was of so very general a character that any noble Lord who was not in the secret might well have been puzzled as to what he had in mind to propose in tabling it. But fortunately there was, as some of your Lordships may have seen, in The Times newspaper on Monday, a very well informed and possibly inspired note which in the old phrase "blew the gall"; and it seemed to me that there could possibly he something that could usefully be said by someone like myself who, in the Dark Ages long ago, occupied the rather uncomfortable position which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, does to-day.
If the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will forgive my saying so, I hope that he will not expect me to follow him in all he has said, because he really ranged, even for this House, very wide indeed. What I really want to do in addressing your Lordships is merely to give the House, for what that may be worth, the fruits of my own experience; and the first thing I should like to do, if I may, is to express to Lord Shackleton and Lord Beswick my most profound sympathy in the situation in which they find themselves. There is, of course, nothing new in the hideous prospect which they see opening before them and which has led them to submit the proposals they have to your Lordships this afternoon, with a view to trying to help us to get through the accumulation of business with
738
which the House is likely to be faced in the next two months. As far back as I can remember, the months of June and July for the Leaders of the House of Lords have always been just hell and nothing else. An enormous mass of only very partially digested legislation is flung at us front another place, and we are expected to give full consideration to it, make valuable Amendments to it, and come to wise decisions on it—however lengthy the Bills in question may be—in the short space of eight Parliamentary weeks. In those circumstances a suggestion which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in his opening speech this afternoon, that we should do what we can ourselves to clear our decks for action by moving at any rate some business off the Floor of the House and dealing with it in a Committee upstairs, must seem, I think, most sensible and mild.
This experiment, I gather, is to be very carefully safeguarded. It is intended to apply, if I understood his speech right, only to uncontroversial Bills, or even to one uncontroversial Bill, and the proposal as a whole is to be regarded only as an experiment. That sounds very harmless indeed, and in any case I am sure we must all want to help the Leader of the House in his difficult task as much as we possibly can. But I must say just this one thing. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I could not hide from myself—and in this I felt a little like my noble friend Lord Grenfell—one uncomfortable reflection. Is this proposal really quite so insignificant as it might appear? May it not be the very thin end of a very large wedge? From what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said in his speech I have a strong suspicion that it will be. Is it, indeed, really to be considered as an experiment at all, or is it not something which has come to stay? And what is more, is it not capable of wide expansion? Will it always be confined to non-controversial Bills, and who is to decide which Bills are controversial and which are non-controversial?
I do not say that such considerations need necessarily or even properly be regarded as final against the proposal of the Leader of the House. On the contrary, we are all like the noble Lord himself, faced with a situation in which,

739
at any rate in my view, we must not turn down lightly any proposals that may be made, however novel, for lightening our labours. But whatever we do, I feel that we should do it with our eyes open; and, though I should certainly not oppose this proposal which has been put forward this afternoon, I feel pretty certain that if we adopt it, we ought frankly to recognise that, almost certainly, it will become a permanency.
And there is one other thing that I think we should recognise. This will not be a complete solution to our problems. Even if we adopt it, it will go only an infinitesimal way towards solving our difficulties. For the real truth is that so long as the House of Commons insist on passing on such a vast mass of legislation to us without even themselves giving it adequate consideration; so long as they throw it at us just at this time of year, in the few weeks before the Summer Recess, they are simply going to make it impossible for this House—one of the main functions of which is, after all, to be a revising Chamber—to perform the duties that lay on it under the Constitution: and that will continue to be true, however short our speeches may be.
Look at the Transport Bill, of which Lord Rowley has already spoken. That is a flagrant case of this kind. What are we to do about that? Does Lord Beswick suggest that that Bill should be sent upstairs? It is certainly not noncontroversial. It is a portentous Bill with 152 Clauses and 18 Schedules. It had its Second Reading in another place on December 20 of last year, and according to The Times, it went into Committee on December 20 and came out on May 15. During the Committee stage, which occupied 45 sittings, the Government had themselves to move 200 Amendments to their own Bill and to withdraw no less than 24 of the original clauses. What is more, as a result of the imposition of the guillotine, more than one third of the Bill's 152 clauses were never discussed by Parliament at all. The Government themselves inserted five new clauses and four new Schedules, none of which were discussed in another place; and even that is not the end of the story, so far as another place is concerned. Since the end of the Committee stage, I understand that the Minister has "popped" in a further series of Amend-
740
ments which are to come before the House during the Report stage, and one of these is apparently of considerable importance. This is the Bill which is to come to this House after Whitsun, and we shall be expected to deal effectively with it, in addition to all our other duties, before the end of July.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I know that the noble Marquess always wishes to be fair. As he has spoken about new clauses being "popped" into the Bill, will he refer to the fact that some clauses have been taken out?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, that will make what I may call a minimal difference to the Bill as it will come to us. One cannot help wondering what can have been the frame of mind of a Minister who deliberately set before Parliament a task so obviously beyond its capacity to perform. Did she and her colleagues say to themselves: "We have a majority in the House of Commons which can be relied upon to support any course which we adopt, and the Lords will not dare to say, 'No'"—I wrote down in my notes "Bo", but both mean much the same thing—" We can therefore cock a snook at Parliament"? Or did they say, "What we should really like, and what we are ultimately aiming for, is a system under which Parliament confines itself to enunciating just broad principles underlining a measure, and leaves it to Ministers and civil servants through Statutory Instruments to apply those principles"? Is it that they have in mind? To me, and I am sure to a great many noble Lords on all sides of the House, that would open up a terrifying prospect. It would mean, more and more, as the years went by, that Parliament would become a dead letter, and this country would be governed by a bureacracy over whom the elected representatives of the people would have no control at all.
Or, finally, my Lords, did the Government not think at all; did they just push this legislation at us to deal with as best we could, whether we did our duty under the Constitution, or not? I do not know the answer, but it seems to me—
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, is not the noble Marquess opening up yet another terrifying prospect—that the House

741
of Lords should tell the House of Commons how to conduct their business?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am going to say what I think the House of Lords should do, so as to be able to conduct their own business. I repeat I do not know the answers to the questions I have posed; but it seems to me that the time is coming (and this is what I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison) when we in this House shall have to say to the House of Commons, "You really must give us time to perform the duties that lie on us under the Constitution. Unless you do, we cannot undertake to pass the legislation at all". And, my Lords, we may find ourselves obliged to say that pretty soon, at no great distant date. In the meantime, if the Leader of the House wishes to try out this limited proposal, I do not feel that we can well refuse him an experiment so relatively moderate, whatever risks to the future may conceivably be involved.
I do not for a moment say that the present Government are the only sinners in this matter of legislation. If I may say so, with all deference, this is a particularly glaring case; but all Governments in recent years, including Tory Governments, have been guilty of the same fault with regard to your Lordships' House. In my view, this is not at all a Party question. It is a serious question affecting all Parties, and one with which all Parties alike will have to deal. Nor will it be dealt with merely by such devices as a reform of the composition of your Lordships' House. The new House, whatever its composition, would be faced with exactly the same problem, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, as we ourselves are now.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, made some extremely interesting suggestions. I certainly should not reject any of these from a mere spirit of conservatism—I mean, of course, "conservatism" with a small "c". And I would say the same of the interesting suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, and others. They certainly deserve study, but I am afraid that none of them will be more than a palliative, and not a very effective palliative at that. And I would repeat, what is really required—I say this in spite of what Lord Beswick said in his opening speech—is that Governments,
742
by which I mean Governments of all political colours, should exercise at least some restraint in the amount of legislation which they introduce into Parliament in any one year. This is really, I believe, the only cure if Parliamentary government is to survive at all.
I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will make it clear to his colleagues, if and when he reports to them what has passed in the House this afternoon, that this is our view in the House. Otherwise, I am sure that at we may find ourselves, as a House, obliged to make our protest in the only way we can, by refusing, and continuing to refuse, to pass legislation which we have had no opportunity properly to digest.
5.50 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am rather sorry that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, seemed to see something secretly sinister in this Motion. I do not. I may be naïve; I may be right or I may be wrong, in seeing the proposal before the House as just a minor adjustment of our machinery. I think that what the noble Marquess should realise is that the world outside is moving very fast indeed. Whether we look at the city squares in Prague, the streets in Paris, or the universities in this country, we see evidence of this movement all around us; and we have got to move with it.
We are not concerned in this debate to-day with the question of the powers, the constitution and the reform of your Lordships' House. This simplifies the issue very much indeed, although I have noticed a tendency on the part of some noble Lords to stray a little way from the fold. If we do have changes later, then we shall certainly have to look once again at our whole question of procedure. But all we are concerned with at the present moment is to make our machinery as effective as we possibly can so long as this Session, and perhaps also the next Session, of Parliament lasts.
It may be asked how we can improve a piece of machinery that is almost perfect. We have had that point of view expressed in the debate. My Lords, it is a fact that the machinery of this House does work. It is a fact that the end product of our deliberations is usually something that the House as a

743
whole wants, even though it may not be what the Government want. But I think we are all agreed that the House does not work quickly enough, and this is the point to which we have to devote our attention this afternoon.
One specific proposal has been put before us: that as an experiment we should invoke the aid of Standing Committees, perhaps, in the first instance, for one Bill—and the Town and Country Planning Bill has been suggested. I agree wholeheartedly with this proposal for Standing Committees. It is a suggestion which I made when we had a debate about two years ago, but at that time it did not seem to evoke any resounding echo. It is true that an experiment of this kind, a system of Standing Committees, was tried many years ago, and failed, but that does not necessarily mean that there should be any objection to it to-day. This is a different kind of House: it has to deal with different kinds of legislation; it has different kinds of Members and it has more Members.
We all remember that quite recently we had two or three Scottish Bills; very complicated and intricate Scottish Bills, which took a very long time on the Committee stage and on the Report stage. I suggest that a Standing Committee could quite adequately deal with Bills of that kind. Then we may have Welsh Bills, with a localised atmosphere about them. I think that a Standing Committee could deal with those also. Then we have quite a number of what I would call Civil Service departmental Bills, technical in their nature, not giving rise to any important matter of political polemics, which again could well be dealt with by a Standing Committee. If in one of these Bills we found lurking in some innocent-looking clause some matter of important political policy, of course we should still have an opportunity on the Report stage to cancel out any decision, any drastic decision, which might have been made against our desires, by the Standing Committee. But, as has been stated from all sides of this House, any really explosive political Bills must have their Committee stages on the Floor of the whole House.
Then we inevitably have to consider how these Committees will be constituted,
744
and a number of suggestions have been put forward about how they should be based. In the other place the matter is quite easy. There is a system of proportional representation whereby the strength of the Committees is constituted in accordance with the strength of the respective Parties in the House. This means that the Government of the day, whatever it may be, automatically has a majority on the Committee. But in this House proportional representation would not work: it would not give the Government of the day a majority on that Committee. The result would be that we should have quite a lot of doing and undoing to attend to when we reached the Report stage, and we might very well waste more time than we saved as a result of the operation. I believe that as a general rule—and I have heard no Party line on this yet; I have merely heard the views expressed by Members in all parts of the House—the general basic principle should be that the Government should have a majority on that Standing Committee, or those Standing Committees. There would, of course, be some exceptions—Bills of a specialised nature, Private Member's Bills, and so on. When we are talking about setting up these Committees, we have to face one very difficult and awkward and unpleasant fact. Shall we have enough members to man these Committees if we go beyond the bounds of a single Committee in a single Session.
It is a fact, one of the harsh facts of life in these days, that there are not many people in your Lordships' House who belong to the really leisured classes. That applies to both sides of the House. I feel that some of our stipendiary Members might have to take a bigger part in the work of these committees, even if it means creating a few extra Lords in Waiting or Parliamentary Under-Secretaries until the time when the House is reformed. Whilst I am on that point, I think there is a need in this House for one or two more senior Ministers, probably of Minister of State status, so that we may keep in line with the important duties which your Lordships' House now has to perform. But all this is quite irrelevant, of course, to the immediate topic under consideration.
When we are considering this manning of the Committees we have to bear in

745
mind that quite a number of our Members, those who happen to have the spare time, do at present devote some of that spare time to the work of Committees which are dealing with privately promoted Bills, and this reduces still further the amount of time which the House will be able to collect and relate to these particular Standing Committees.
There is, of course, the question of voting. That has been referred to in several quarters. It was suggested in the Manchester Guardian some time ago that a very easy way out would be to have the Second Reading of Bills on the same day in both Houses; that the Bill should then be referred to a Joint Committee representing both Houses; that the Members of both Houses should have the privilege of speaking, but that only Members of the House of Commons should have the privilege of voting. Well that, my Lords, is going to reduce your Lordships to the state of being eunuchs, which is not a very edifying prospect.
I am afraid the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, with his vast experience of this House, did not provide us with a solution. He did not tell us whether the members of the Committee were to vote or not to vote. He said it might be an open Committee where, if there was to be a vote, somebody would run round the House and bring out 20 or 30 Members from one particular side and usher them upstairs into the room so that they could vote. Alternatively, I think he left it open that the Committee might not vote at all. If the Committee could not vote at all, how is it going to convey to your Lordships' House on the Report stage what Amendments it suggests should be made to any particular Bill?
A suggestion has been raised (it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who was the spokesman of the now vacant Liberal Benches—and it was referred to by my noble friends Lord Rowley and Lord Mitchison) that we might have a Speaker to keep order, with cast-iron rules, such as those which exist in the House of Commons. Two considerations arise here. The first is a pretty simple one: is it right that the Lord Chancellor, without any powers at all to regulate debate or to keep order, should have to waste many valuable hours sitting on the Woolsack, and then
746
stay up all night to perform his other important legislative, administrative, and judicial duties? If he had the power to control this House it would be an entirely different matter. I feel that he should be relieved of his routine duties. I believe that he should open the House in the traditional manner, that he should preside over Question Time, and then hand over to a person whom we would appoint as a Deputy Speaker and who, if your Lordships wished, could be adorned in wig and gown.
The second question in relation to the appointment of a Speaker is perhaps a more important and less personal one. It is whether the occupant of the Woolsack, or the Officer presiding at any of our other Sittings, should be invested with the full powers of a Chairman, deciding the order of speakers, dealing with points of order, silencing noble Lords for repetition, and perhaps choosing Amendments on the "kangaroo" basis that is common in the other place. This looks a rather attractive proposal. It would stimulate an atmosphere of cut-and-thrust in your Lordships' debates; it would make the whole proceedings brisker, more exciting, and it might possibly speed up some of our proceedings. But I am against it root and branch. Under the present system practically everybody has a chance to speak, and I take no notice of the fact that in our recent discussion of the Justices of the Peace Bill sixty or seventy of your Lordships howled me down. It may be that our present system gets a little tedious at times—but it works. It works because of the chivalrous and reasonable attitude your Lordships bring to bear on most of the matters which come before the House unless some vital, vigorous question of Party policy happens to be concerned.
What would happen if we put a sergeant-major in charge as Deputy Speaker? We should have rows, disputed decisions, interminable points of order, and we should have a long list of would-be speakers who had been denied the opportunity of addressing your Lordships' House. Some disappointed Members might nurse a grievance and feel that they had a mission to beat the Chairman. A few clever Members after a close study of Standing Orders, could do much to delay the proceedings of any assembly. We should have a debate on

747
procedure probably every day, and would waste more time in the long run than we saved. I remember back in the '20s, when I was a Lobby correspondent at the other end of this building, that there were then a few Members of the other House who made themselves expert in this way. We all remember Pringle and Hogge; we all remember, if my noble friend Lord Strabolgi will forgive me, the names of Kenworthy and Wedgwood-Benn. I remember a bearded Scottish M.P. who made himself master of the strategy of being awkward. If a few Members of the House set out to make things awkward for the Speaker, the whole proceedings could be reduced to chaos. Moreover, the House of Commons has a fully armed Speaker—and are they always more orderly and more expeditious in the despatch of their business than we are?
I base this point of view not merely on theoretical observation. Many years ago I was the leader of the Opposition on a fairly important urban district council. I studied the standing orders very closely, and I was able to play havoc with the Tory majority that was in power, to hold up and delay a great deal of their business, and in the process I reduced one of them almost to a nervous wreck. That may not have been my finest hour, but that kind of thing can happen. Many years later I was chairman of a big county council. I found myself having to deal with a recalcitrant member who was almost the reincarnation of what I had been on that urban district council some years before. The work of the whole council was delayed, and regularly at every meeting I had to call in a police inspector and two constables to carry him out. I was for 15 years the chairman of the Party organisation for the eight eastern counties at a time when the Right/Left controversy was at its most intense in our Party. Therefore, as one who has had a great deal of experience of chairmanship, as no doubt have many other noble Lords, I consider that no matter how strict the standing orders, how stern or tactful the chairman, Satan will always find some work for a mischievous pair of hands. I do not want to see an almighty Chairman in your Lordships' House—I think that would waste more time than it would save.
748
Another proposal that has been made is to have a kangaroo or guillotine in Committee. I sometimes feel that we need it, especially when I see 100 Amendments or more down for the Committee stages of some Bills. But I am a fair man, and I realise that many of those Amendments are probably necessary or desirable because that very kangaroo or guillotine has been exercised in the other place, and they have had no opportunity to consider that particular part of the Bill to which your Lordships are putting down Amendments. So I do not think that the guillotine or kangaroo in this House in its present temper is desirable. Nevertheless, if there should be signs of a filibuster developing—and I have seen incipient signs during the last few weeks, although I may have misinterpreted the situation; there have been innumerable, superfluous speeches made on innocuous Amendments which have ultimately been withdrawn. I do not indict your Lordships on a charge of filibustering, but if one did see signs of one growing up on an organised basis I should be inclined to consider a guillotine or kangaroo. It would be a pity, and, as a realist, I would say that it might be difficult to persuade your Lordships' House to adopt it. The same thing applies to the straightforward closure, which is a procedure not unknown in your Lordships' House. It was employed by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, at the time of the first Labour Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it was a great failure.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Marquess has to confess that something he did was a great failure. It was given authenticity by the fact that it was accepted by the Lord Chancellor of that time, though in what capacity I do not know. I feel that the real remedy is to put down fewer Amendments than we do at the moment. Many are purely probing, technical Amendments which could well be settled by correspondence between individual noble Lords and the Minister in charge.
I then come to the proposal that there should be a time limit on speeches. On this matter I have to move from the witness box to the dock. On the question

749
of time limits, as Professor Joad used to say, "It all depends what you mean". It would be a pity to cut short important and intricately argumentative speeches on some important subject. Equally, it would be a pity if because of imposing a 15 minute time limit we provoked people into going the full 15 minutes when otherwise they would have been content with ten. If they felt a grievance, they might be provoked into making six 15 minute speeches instead of being content with one speech of 25 minutes.
Another remedy which is sometimes suggested—perhaps by a noble Lord who walks into your Lordships' House, makes a speech urging shorter speeches and then goes away for months and we hear no more about him—is self-discipline.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord's intricate, well-argued and very good-humoured speech, but I should like to point out to him that he, himself, has been speaking for 19½ minutes.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Yes, my Lords. I was just coming to the point that we need more self-discipline, and that after to-day's discussion we shall have to apply it. I was about to say that we should also have some of this self-discipline, self-sacrifice if you like, from the Members of the two Front Benches when they are making introductory speeches and answering on Bills which are of relatively minor importance. I certainly would not suggest anything like that where a matter of important State policy or, indeed, of important Party policy is concerned. But I sometimes feel that on little technical Bills of no vast public importance the speeches made for and against from the two Front Benches are a bit too long. I hope that I have not got into trouble with the Leader of the House for saying that.
We have heard it suggested from time to time that we should be allowed more than four Oral Questions on any day. Now some questions are good ones and some questions are bad ones, but the fact is that the full ration of four is not always taken up. So I think we must be content with the fact that a ration of four Questions obviously meets the requirements of the House. But I will say that we must be much more careful with supplementaries than we have been in the past. I
750
particularly dislike, and should like to curb, those multi-paragraph supplementaries which are carefully typed out beforehand on sheets of foolscap. But if supplementary questions genuinely and spontaneously arise out of an answer that a Minister has given, and if they are directly concerned with a Question and Answer, then the more we have of them the better, because we then get that cut and thrust that is missing from so many of the parts of the procedures of your Lordships' House.
Briefly, what about our Wednesday debates? think that if we tried to tamper with those we should destroy one of the most valuable features of the House. But, even here, some cooperation is needed among noble Lords. I think we should try to limit our list of speakers to 15 or 16, because a long list does not always stimulate debate. There must inevitably be a good deal of repetition and there are bound to be only a few noble Lords left to hear the speakers who happen to be at the bottom of the list. I remember a year ago rising to address your Lordships late one night, and saying that I felt like the boy on the burning deck
"whence all but he had fled."
But that, again, requires self-discipline, and this is rather easier to preach than to practice. This leads me to ask: will television help our business or will it hinder it? I think it is going to hinder it. We would have more speakers getting up than would otherwise be getting up. I think we are really a workshop and the television temptation would take our minds off our work. We have to get on with our job.
When all these things have been said, the main thing we all have in mind is to avoid wasting time. None of us wants regular morning sittings. None of us wants regular very late night sittings. We have wives, most of us; impatient wives, some of us. We do not want a permanent five-day week. But some of these things are inevitable unless our work is speeded up and unless we fill each hour with more busy minutes. I should not object to a shorter Recess, but I feel that many noble Lords would not like it. So, with that gracious attitude which I usually show, I shall not press that very seriously. But when everything has been filtered out, there

751
are only two aspects of our business where considerable savings of time can be made; that is, in the Committee stages and Report stages of Bills. I should like, first, to see non-political Bills sent to Standing Committees if we can manage it; and, secondly, fewer unnecessary Amendments, and shorter speeches, including the answering.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD LEATHERLAND: You see, my Lords, I have you unanimously with me. Thirdly, we should be getting away from repeating on Report stage matters which we have already dealt with in Committee. If those three things are done, we can forget most of the other suggestions that have been made.
This is a good House. This is a useful House. It saves an enormous amount of time in the House of Commons and it often vastly improves legislation. But it would be a pity if, by failing to adjust our gear to cope with its work, we encourage the view, which is prevalent enough, that Parliament is out of date and no longer capable of dealing with the nation's needs. This is a vital consideration and one which we ought not to ignore. I thank your Lordships for your patience.
6.16 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. I remember well as a spectator, so to speak, watching the way in which he dealt with some difficult councillors when he presided over Essex County Council, which I should think is very good training for the high office which he now holds in Essex University. But I have a special reason for being grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for initiating this debate, for I had the self-imposed duty during, I think, three successive years of initiating debates on this subject. I can only say, in retrospect, that I am extremely grateful for the patience of your Lordships in allowing me to do so, for I realise that any ideas that were put forward on those occasions were not necessarily new. The only contribution I was tempted to make on those occasions was to draw your Lordships' attention to the urgency of the reforms in procedure
752
which the new character of this House makes necessary.
The noble Lord the Chief Government Whip, who opened this debate this afternoon, was quite right when he pointed out something which must be recognised; that is, that the character of this House has changed. Reformed or not, this House is a new House and we must recognise that, not only in terms of its composition but also in terms of its procedure. I believe—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell—that the real solution to the problem of this House, the procedures of this House and the conduct of its business, will never be found until a full reform of this House has taken place.
It is reported that considerable progress has been made by the two Front Benches in their negotiations on this matter of reform, but I think there is a danger looming ahead; a danger which we face as a result of the pile-up of business during the last three months of this Session. That danger is that the House of Lords may get itself into serious political difficulties through no fault of its own. My noble friend Lord Salisbury said that the time might come when the House, in all conscience, would feel compelled not to pass legislation which had not properly been dealt with, regardless of its political content. There might in certain circumstances be strong arguments in favour of that, but your Lordships will realise the misunderstanding that such a situation might create in the country.
It must be recognised that so far we have devoted most of this year to relatively minor legislation, and once again we are prevented by the processes—what appear to be the normal processes— of the annual conduct of our business from carrying out our constitutional role, which is the revision of Bills—the important Bills which will come before us during the next few months. Those Bills are going to have very great political significance, and if we do not do our job properly then this House will be discredited, because it will mean that Parliament is apparently working, legislatively, only on a single cylinder. But if we do our job properly we may well interrupt and postpone important legislation which, at any rate in the view of the Government of the day, is essential to the conduct of the business of the

753
country. That is a very difficult dilemma in which your Lordships' House may well find itself within a relatively short time.
I should like to say very clearly that I deplore a recent speech by Mr. Julian Amery in which he invited the Independent Unionist Party in the House of Lords to harry the Government so as to force a General Election. I know of no more mischievous advice, and I regret that such irresponsibility should come from someone of Mr. Amery's standing. The House of Lords must not allow itself to be misused by the Conservative Party, or any other Party, in the interests of political tactics in the House of Commons or in the country generally. If this were to happen, then the Party so using it would discredit itself and, in the process, would discredit this House.
What we decide to do now, I suggest to your Lordships, must be in the interests of this House and of its constitutional role in the British Parliament, and therefore we must consider what machinery should be provided to enable us so to conduct our affairs as to fulfil our constitutional function properly. In my view, the Government should confess that the present log jam is to some extent due to their own fault, because it has not been the policy of the present Government to introduce major legislation early in the Session in this House, but to concentrate it all in the House of Commons. Unless there can be some better distribution of the introduction of legislation between the two Houses during a Session, I see no possibility of avoiding the situation in which we now find ourselves.
However, leaving that aside, we are in that situation, and the noble Lord who opened this debate proposed that the experiment should be initiated of a Select Committee or Standing Committee which would take the Committee stage of noncontroversial Bills off the Floor of the House and upstairs. I must say that I think there are strong arguments in favour of that, but the problem—and it is a problem of great difficulty—is: what should be the composition of that Committee, and how far should it go in dealing with Amendments to legislation on that Committee stage?
It seems to me that there are two alternative methods of appointing such
754
a Committee. First, it, can follow the pattern which I think (I do not know whether your Lordships agree with me) should be the pattern of the composition of the reformed House of Lords when that reform takes place; that is to say, there should be a Government majority over the Liberal and Conservative Parties, in the case of the present Parliament, with the Cross-Benchers holding the balance. Or, if that principle is not acceptable to your Lordships' House, or is not practicable, for some reason or other, then I would think that the Committee should be selected in the normal way by the Committee of Selection; and it might well be that in certain circumstances the actual selection could be made by ballot from a list of Peers who had signified their preparedness to take part in the Committee stage of a particular Bill.
If that were to be done, then I think it is quite clear that the point which was touched on by the noble Earl the Opposition Chief Whip should be further examined; that is to say, whether the Committe upstairs should in fact have the right to vote for or against an Amendment during that particular stage. I should have thought that there might be a system whereby, in the event of a certain number of the Members of the Committee voting against an Amendment, the Chairman would signify that that Amendment should be referred downstairs, to be considered by the full House during the Report stage; so that there would be no final vote taken in the Committee and the matter would be left for decision by the full House.
It might be said that this would delay our procedure, because it would mean a second debate on that Amendment on the Floor of the House. It may well be that that would be necessary; but I think that if a Record of the debates in Committee were kept and published, it would be the duty of all Members of the House to acquaint themselves with the proceedings of the Committee before the Bill was taken on Report stage on the Floor of the House, in which circumstances it might be possible for the arguments for and against to be put formally by one spokesman for and one spokesman against, so that the House could then judge and vote without further delay.

755
My Lords, I do not say that that is necessarily a practicable solution. What I am suggesting to your Lordships, however, is this; that we find ourselves now, at this stage, as we have in previous years, considering the problems of procedure in a single day's debate without having fully thought about, or fully examined, the implications of the proposals which have been put forward, or the problems of the situation with which your Lordships' House is faced. Although I know that on a previous occasion when I suggested that there should be a Select Committee on Procedure it was not acceptable to a majority of your Lordships, I feel, if I may say so, that if last year we had had a Select Committee to examine this problem then it would have reported by now, and we should not be entering into an experiment in procedural change in this House—an experiment which is going to be very difficult to carry out effectively—without (I say this with respect to the Government and, here, if I may say so, with respect to my own Party) really having thought out its full implications. I should therefore like to ask the Leader of the House once again whether he will consider, if necessary after discussions with the other Parties concerned, not referring this problem to the Procedure Committee, which in my view has quite a different function, but setting up a Select Committee to go into the implications of the changes which are necessary and will be necessary in the future.
My Lords, I have tried to put fairly shortly what I hope is at any rate a practical suggestion. I would say only this to my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip: that I do not think he is either wise or right to say that, apart from this sort of change, there should be no other changes considered in the procedures of this House. To the eyes of those who come fairly objectively from outside there are many things which can be improved, and all our experiences during these last years have shown that in fact there are certain changes in the procedures of this House which, if made, would rebound to the credit of this House and would further the efficient conduct of its business. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships once again, in accepting this Motion, as no doubt your Lordships
756
will, to consider whether this is not now the time to take a much more thorough and, if I may say so, a much more farsighted view of the future procedure in your Lordships' House.
6.28 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I shall be very brief indeed, as befits somebody who has listened intently this afternoon and learnt a great deal. I should like to thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for initiating what has been so far an extremely interesting debate containing many useful suggestions. We have heard some gunfire in the semi-distance, and I think it right that this should be so, as reform of your Lordships' House was in the Queen's Speech. I should like to say just one or two things in parenthesis. I noted that in his most interesting speech my noble friend Lord Beswick said that our function was argument, not division—I was very happy with that—and he expressed a wish to collect opinions. I remember seeing at the front of a procession of dockers going to the Ministry of Labour a placard which said, "Continuity is our right", and, Parties apart, I think that this is what we should think about in any changes we make.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has hinted, with legislation in the other place in a state of jam there is a danger that we might be tempted into a rescue operation, when in fact thought and argument are to us more important than actual legislation. My noble friend Lord Brockway has referred to what might become a permanent meeting of the British Association. I do not mean that we have nothing to do with legislation. I think the prime mood of our Chamber is the very one we have witnessed this afternoon, in which really serious thoughts are expressed without any sense of gain beyond the gain of more successful thought. It strikes me, in conclusion, that we ought to think hard all the time of the new people that will be coming to our House and of whether it will, or can, produce a more interesting opportunity for them. I suggest that it undoubtedly can. We ought to avoid this potential danger of "taking the washing", as it were, of the other place, and of getting too tied up in detail when our main aim, rights and tradition are to form a very wide survey.
6.31 p.m.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, I am sure that some of your Lordships may be wondering why I, with less than one Parliamentary Session's membership of this House, should dare to intervene in this debate. I do so because it seems to me that on arrival here I am more acutely aware of those things that I find peculiar or that annoy me than probably I shall be in two years' time. This House, like so much of our British way of life, is founded on tradition; and the tradition of this House is something with which I should be the last person to want to interfere. But tradition is a very old plant. It is like one of those beautifully shaped trees that one sees on mediæval tapestries. They have to be carefully nurtured and pruned and they must have branches lopped off from time to time. It seems to me that that is how this House must be regarded if it is to survive as a vigorous growth in the body politic and not to become an untidy bunch of twigs that is of not much use to anybody.
It so happens that my experience in public work has been in an assembly where the talking is done either in anticipation of or as a result of taking some action. This makes for a profound difference of approach from that of your Lordships' approach to the problem of legislation, where you are assisting in making a legal system for this country for the future. I recognise this difference and it is a handicap to me, I will admit, in understanding some of your Lordships' procedures. But at the end of what has been quite a long debate, I want to list, quite briefly, those things which I should like to see done differently.
I would accept a limitation on the length of speeches of—shall we say?—15 minutes. I hold that what you cannot say in 15 minutes, you cannot say. There will clearly have to be exceptions for the Leaders of the Parties on Second Reading debates and on other special occasions of that sort; but, as a general rule, it seems to me that 15 minutes' limitation should suffice. I have never quite understood—as one day undoubtedly I shall—the difference between an Unstarred Question and a Motion for Papers. They seem to have the same effect of producing a long list of speakers at the end of the day's business. I should have thought
758
that without any loss of dignity or opportunity or any sense of putting on a silencer they could be limited in length to—I do not know what, but, let us say, two, three, or five hours. I have sat here and known them to go on for more than seven hours and I dare say there have been occasions when they have gone on for longer than that. I think that that is something which we could look at.
The other thing that has worried me is that there are occasions when this House adjourns in the middle of the evening. It seems to me that we are sufficiently part of show business for the show to go on. I think that except in constitutional emergencies the House should sit until it has finished its business. If it is necessary for other things to be done while the House is sitting, that is a different matter. For there ordinarily to be an adjournment when there may be 150 of your Lordships present who have to hang about or who are, perhaps, enabled to eat a meal, seems to me to be a gross waste of everybody's time. Tied up with an adjournment is another matter that I feel needs looking at very carefully. In making this a place which your Lordships will willingly and gladly attend and in which you will be prepared to sit through the Session, the matter of the arangements for refreshments during the evening is important. One can arrive here at 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in the afternoon and may want to slay for several hours; but one may not have the least idea of what the refreshment arrangements are going to be. Sometimes it is very difficult to find out; sometimes they just do not exist.
We come then to the very vexed question of Committees of the whole House. I have never in my life seen the like of this cumbersome procedure. If there is a Committee, it should abide by the rules of a Committee. I believe those rules exist if we had the will to enforce them. It should not be possible, as is the case when the House is in Committee, for the same Lord to make a speech once, twice, three times or four times. And because it is a meeting of the whole House in Committee, it is not a question of comments backwards and forwards across a table, as is usually the case at a committee meeting. A formal and set speech is delivered on every occasion. This, I

759
think, is the greatest waste of time I have yet noticed.
My Lords, even if these difficulties can be resolved, we have still to overcome two of the greatest problems of them all. The first is this. I believe that in this Chamber there is no means of enforcing the will of the House. That is something to which we shall have to give thought if this House is to play its proper part in the great weight of legislation which is coming forward and in the business of government generally. It is not only legislation with which we have to deal. As a result of membership of the House of Lords, our mail is heavy with requests for engagements which, owing to our commitments, we are usually unable to accept. We should all be enabled to take a much larger part in the business of government if our commitments in this Chamber were reduced by what I would call the "pruning of our mediæval fruit tree." I would ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to consider some of these ideas in order that we can have a more lasting Chamber, a more useful Chamber in a more modernised society.
6.39 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, when you have a leaking tap, sooner or later your sink will overflow. When this happens there are two remedies open to you. Of the two, that of installing a larger sink is the less satisfactory; for, by the time that that, too, overflows, as inevitably it will, the leak will have become much more serious and harder to mend. I can well imagine that it is becoming harder for Her Majesty's Government to fit in the business with which we have to deal; but if we are to contain the problem we must tackle the root cause. The reason for it is not so much the undeniable fact that the volume of business is increasing as the equally undeniable fact that we are talking longer about it. This, in turn, is not because we are actually saying more, but because we are taking more words and more time to say it.
My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn said that the House conducts itself by common sense and common control. In the old days there used to be a third thing added: the House used to conduct itself by common good manners. The fact is that
760
many of the traditional courtesies of this House have over the past few years been going more and more by the board. The chief of the unwritten laws used to be that no one should speak longer than necessary; ten minutes was considered a short speech and twenty minutes a long one. With the list of speakers at medium length, speeches used to average out at four to the hour. Nowadays we may consider ourselves lucky if we get three to the hour.
I remember the late Lord Brabazon of Tara saying in this House that if you could not say what you wanted to say in twenty minutes you should go away and write a book about it. The trouble nowadays is that noble Lords write their book but instead of sending the manuscript to a publisher they come and read it to your Lordships. The length of speeches is aggravated by the constant breach of two more of the old rules. These are that you should listen to every speech before your own and that you should stay in the House until the end of the debate. My Lords, if you have not listened to all the speeches before your own, you have no means of knowing how many of your points have already been adequately made, and you cannot cut down your speech accordingly. If you do not intend to stay until the end of the debate, you have no incentive to keep the only part of the proceedings over which you yourself have control as short as possible. I have often heard a noble Lord make a 25-minute speech in the middle of a long list of speakers and then say, in a rather aggrieved tone, that as the debate seemed to be taking rather longer than he expected he would have to leave before the end.
My Lords, the official list of speakers, which is always printed before a debate such as this, apart from its merits in enabling a balanced order for debate to be arranged, should give the House some guidance as to the probable length of a debate. But in the same way as it is now difficult to calculate the length of speeches, it is now difficult to know how many speeches there are going to be. Most Peers do not announce their intention of speaking until just before the time of the debate; many Peers speak without having put down their names at all. It is therefore quite impossible for the Government Chief Whip to work out how much time to allow for each

761
debate and how to plan the Order Paper so as to get through the business with the minimum inconvenience to the House as a whole. That is why, for instance, last week, on Monday, we sat until twenty minutes after midnight even after a Second Reading debate had been dropped; on Tuesday we rose at 8.17 p.m. and on Wednesday and Thursday at 5.18 p.m. and 6.15 p.m. respectively. We could have risen at eight o'clock each night and still got through exactly the same amount of business, even with the same length of speeches.
Committee stages present even more problems than other debates. Too often, as has been mentioned before, speeches on Amendments are the length of Second Reading speeches. Too often, because a noble Lord has had to miss a Second Reading (or in spite of the fact that he has already spoken on Second Reading) they are Second Reading speeches. There is another point about Committees which is rather more important. The attendance in the House is at its highest early in the day, and numbers gradually dwindle as the afternoon and evening wear on. This is somewhat natural. What is always somewhat natural is that speeches are inclined to be longer earlier on, and they shorten as the day goes on. A combination of these two facts has a disturbing effect on a long Committee stage. Amendments discussed between 2.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. usually attract the largest number of speakers and the longest speeches, to the extent that it is difficult for the House, sometimes over a period of hours, to take in all the arguments for and against a particular Amendment. At the other end of the scale, towards the end of the evening, numbers shrink and speeches are short, so that very often Amendments do not get the discussion and attention they merit. It is only at some point between the two times—round about this time in fact—that the number and length of speeches achieve their optimum point. It cannot be right that whether a particular Amendment receives the closest attention of the House or not should depend on the time of day when it happens to be called.
All too often, when a short debate approaches its end at a reasonable hour, four or five unlisted noble Lords join in, sometimes at length, sometimes Peers
762
who have not been present throughout the debate even though there are more items on the Order Paper to come. If Professor Parkinson were to study the procedings in your Lordships' House, he would observe a particularly localised application of his law: debate expands to fill the time that is available. Once we start having Committees upstairs, we shall not be able to stop. With more time available there will be more talk.
My Lords, I cannot say that I enjoy the prospect. that I see for the future—of a noble Lord speaking up to 25 minutes in your Lordships' Chamber, and then rushing upstairs to a Committee and making another speech of 25 minutes there, and then leaving the building before the proceedings in either place have finished. After a time, with two or more assemblies working full-time, it will again be impossible to get the business through. Then we shall be forced to do what we should be doing now, what we should have done before, which is to tackle the cause rather than try to alleviate the effect. May I suggest to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that an ad hoc all-Party Committee should be set up, not so much to discuss the question of procedure as the noble Lord, Lord Alport (who I see has departed from the Chamber), suggested, but to see whether we can bring back to this House a little of the basic good manners which it used to have and which made things go so much more easily.
My Lords, the Select Committee should, if possible, do this by exhortation, but if not, by Standing Order. Because it is absolutely no good whatsoever going through all the expense, trouble and disruption of having a Committee upstairs if the time saved on the Floor of the House is going to be taken up by noble Lords taking 35 minutes instead of 25 to make a speech which ought to have been condensed into a quarter of an hour.
6.47 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I want to join in the refrain. I want to make a very practical suggestion which has probably been made before, that we ought to have a clock on each of the four sides of the Chamber. I say that with some feeling, because last night I broke the rule which I imposed upon

763
myself when I first came to your Lordships' House, that I would not speak for more than 13½ minutes—that is a refinement of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Fiske. I would point out that 13½ minutes is the practical length of a turnover article in The Times and of a "think-piece" in the New Statesman. In fact, it is about as much as most people can take at one swallow. Therefore, if you wish to get the best attention in this House, never speak more than 13½ minutes. To demonstrate that, and prove it experimentally, just watch someone listening to, say, a Reith Lecture—something for which you have made an appointment, and not something to which you just drop in and listen—and see how people start to fidget after 13½ minutes.
My Lords, I said that I was very grieved about last night because I had a similar experience at Cambridge when I was addressing the students and I ran over my time. I apologised, and I said: "It is all your fault because there is no clock in this hall." A very aggrieved student got up and said, "No sir, but there is a calendar." Sometimes I feel that there ought to be a calendar in your Lordships' House. I strongly recommend this simple discipline to your Lordships because it pays off. It is the experience of all mass-communication and of all people who successfully write for newspapers that if a speaker cannot say what he wants to say in 13½ minutes, it is not worth saying. I am quite serious about that. If you cannot say what you want to say in 13½ minutes, you do not know what you are talking about, and you have not done your homework properly.
The second thing that I would reinforce, and say again to both Front Benches (and here I am doing something I should warn your Lordships about, which is not to repeat other people's speeches), is that it is not necessary to read a White Paper into HANSARD. I know that many points have to be covered in a Front Bench speech, but most of it is substantiation of facts and figures. I strongly recommend that if we are going to expedite procedure, either in the Chamber or in Committee, let us start by strong self-discipline and restraint in the length of speeches.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, may I put to my noble friend that when he makes the suggestion of having extra clocks installed, he will not insist that they should be alarm clocks.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I was going to make the suggestion that noble Lords use what I provide myself with for my lectures in class, an alarm watch—which does not appear to work in your Lordships' House.
6.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I at this stage dare a short intervention? I have informed the noble Lord Carrington, that I proposed to do this. It will last by my stop-watch two minutes and a half. This afternoon we have heard a great deal about the mass of Government Bills which come to us, often undigested, and which we have to swallow almost hook, line and sinker. But what about the position in reverse? What about our Bills, our Private Members' Bills? In many cases they do not even get considered at all in another place. There is not time for them. I speak with some feeling. I do not doubt that your Lordships remember the Sexual Offences Bill and the fact that it had to be passed three times by this House. I think your Lordships will remember this, because I know that we were all so heartily sick of the business that at the end a groan went up every time the subject was mentioned.
I am an unrepentant believer in this House as an initiator of non-political legislation. Sometimes I am tempted to think of this as almost our most important remaining function. Is there no hope—and I speak with great humility—that another place will perhaps pay more attention to our very serious attempts to change things which we believe to be wrong? It does not matter whether they do it upstairs or downstairs, or where they do it. Without flattering your Lordships, I believe this to be the most brilliant debating Chamber in the world. I speak without hyperbole, without exaggeration. Should not perhaps more thought be given to the things which your Lordships in your wisdom—and I mean wisdom—recommend?
6.53 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we have had many speakers in this debate and I do not intend to be very long.

765
I confess that I find it rather ironic that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, in a speech which lasted 26 minutes, should advise the Front Bench, to keep their speeches short. I should like to tell him that I do not think I have made a speech of that length in the last three Parliaments. So perhaps he might look to his own laurels. As my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn said, the House disciplines itself, and perhaps if we had been a little less polite and a little less tolerant, we might have shouted to the noble Lord, "Sit down!" or, conceivably, "Shut up!" But the noble Lord is so endearing that he gets away with it, and I only hope that the self-discipline he told us he was going to impose upon himself—starting to-morrow—will not be like "Jam to-morrow" and never actually arrive.
We have had some very interesting speeches, but for myself the most interesting was that given shortly and succinctly by my noble friend Lord Denham, who seemed to me to talk a lot of good sense. He sits on the Front Bench here as Whip and has to endure a great deal of the oratory that takes place in this House, and I think that we may learn a good deal from the short speech he gave us this afternoon.
I do not wish to enter at all into the controversy of whether or not our procedure is right or wrong, except to say that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that our procedure is all that wrong. I think that what is wrong with it is that we operate it wrongly and that we are being asked to do a great deal too much, though in some respects there are ways in which we could improve. I do not pretend to talk about the remedies that we could possibly try, except to say just this about the proposed new Committee. I am not entirely convinced that this is the right answer, partly because I do not think that it will save much time. If we send unimportant Bills up to this Committee, it is not going to save any time, because they would not have taken much time in the House anyway, and I think that we should not send up important Bills. Therefore, I have misgivings about whether this procedure is going to work.
Your Lordships' House as it is at present is not constituted to break into
766
separate parts. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that there were something like 220 working Peers, so to speak. Not all of them come for all the day, and I do not think that we are a large enough Assembly for two assemblies to be sitting at the same time. I would accept that this should be tried as an experiment—indeed a continuation, because we used to do this before the war—but I do not think we should accept that, because we are agreed to take this one Bill, whatever it may be, upstairs, it is a precedent that we should necessarily follow.
I rise really to talk about what worries me at this particular time—that is, what is going to happen to this House in the next few months. One of our justifications for having a Second Chamber is that it should be a revising chamber. It should revise what the Commons have done and, perhaps even more important, what the Commons have not done. What is happening at the present time? It seems to me that three things are happening. First of all, by revising its procedure in a fairly minor way—but nevertheless revising it—the House of Commons is turning out legislation like a sausage machine. There is a spate of Bills coming to us from another place, and I think that it is true to say that when we have a Labour Government there is always a good deal more legislation. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Salisbury that this happens all the time. It is always very much worse when there is a Labour Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I did not say that that was not so. All I said was that both when I was Leader of the House and when I was Leader of the Opposition, the House was always faced with this problem, in a greater or lesser degree, during June and July. I agree that this is a particularly glaring case.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, there always is a congestion, but on this occasion it is going to be something quite out of the ordinary. I have done some figures on this. In a Labour Government's day, if we take 1945 onwards and the three years of this Government, on an average they turned out 1322 pages of legislation in one Session. A Conservative Government, in the years between

767
1951 and 1964, turned out, on average, 890 pages of legislation in the Session. This is about 40 per cent. less than a Labour Government, and without wishing to be Party political, or too Party political, I should not have thought that the Conservative Government was noticably less efficient as a Government than the present Administration because it had turned out fewer Bills than the Government of noble Lords opposite. That is the first thing that has happened.
Secondly, some of the Bills which are about to come to your Lordships from another place are almost totally undigested. As some noble Lords have already said, there are large chunks of the Transport Bill which, when it arrives here, will never even have been discussed; and new clauses and new subsections have been added to the Bill between Committee and Report stages in another place. There is still the guillotine, and it seems most unlikely that a great many of these will be discussed. We have the Finance Bill, which has now been guillotined. I do not want to go into the merits of whether or not it should be guillotined: my Party's point of view is perfectly clear. But what is happening is that large chunks of the Finance Bill, which affects in some way or another everybody in the country, are never going to be discussed in either House of Parliament unless we in this House depart entirely from precedent and have a Committee stage on the Finance Bill. I must say that I do not know of any reason, strictly speaking, why we should not have a Committee stage on the Finance Bill, although certainly it would be most unusual and very time-consuming. But the fact is that unless we do there will be a vast amount of legislation put on the Statute Book which has never been discussed by either House of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene merely to say that I am quite sure we can do it; but any Amendments that we put in would be regarded as contrary to Commons privilege when they got back to the House of Commons, and they would not be heard. But if we wished to make a point, I think it would be the right thing for us to do.
LORD CARRINGTON: I entirely agree with what my noble friend says. As a result of this, what is happening is that the whole Parliamentary procedure is being brought into ridicule and contempt. We had a debate the other day on our institutions in this House, when this point came very much to the fore. I must frankly tell noble Lords opposite that I think they are doing a great disservice to Parliamentary government in the way they are at this moment pushing legislation through both Houses of Parliament.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord is going to make so much of this point, that so much more legislation has come from the Labour Government since the war, would he make some passing reference to the fact that the entire structure of the Welfare State has been erected by legislation from that same Government? Inevitably if we are to be a reformist Party and a reformist Government, we shall pass more legislation.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, nobody can say that in the last three years there has been much structure of constructive legislation passed through Parliament, and certainly not in this Session. I do not want to get into a discussion of whether or not legislation is good or bad. What I am saying is that the Labour Government always have more legislation and, therefore, there is this jam in this House. The noble Lord can look as angry as he wishes, but it is a fact, and he cannot get round it.
LORD BESWICK: It is not necessarily a bad fact.
LORD CARRINGTON: It is a fact, which I am going on to explain.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He is always so kind if I interrupt, and I am grateful to him. I understand that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill has been guillotined. Has the other place reached the Report stage yet? Is there any reason why those parts which have been subject to the operation of the guillotine should not then be discussed?
LORD CARRINGTON: What does the noble Lord think as an old Parliamentarian? Does he really think that all the points that have not been discussed on the Committee stage in the Commons are

769
going to be discussed on the Report stage? I do not think he does. Unless he has a very constructive intervention, may I get on?
LORD MITCHISON: All I was going to say was that there has been a great deal of discussion about this, and I think they ought to have agreed a timetable.
LORD CARRINGTON: That is a different point. The noble Lord has shifted his sands a little. The other point that I wanted to make—and I am sorry if I am annoying noble Lords opposite—is about the position of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who came to his great office with a very big reputation as a law reformer. He was expected, and desired by all of us, of whatever Party, to simplify, codify and make easy our law. It is, I think, ironic that he should be presiding in this House in this Session over a large number of the most complicated Bills that we have ever had, some of them so little discussed and so little digested that they cannot be in a state of which he himself can be proud.
My Lords, I do not understand how this House can fulfil its functions as a revisory Chamber between now and the Summer Recess. There are three factors. We are basically a part-time House as we are now constituted—and I hope, incidentally, that we shall continue to go on being a part-time House and not a House of professional politicians. We all have other things to do. Secondly, we are basically rather elderly, because the hereditary system by its nature produces a rather elderly House and, if I am not offending noble Lords who are not hereditary Peers, Life Peers are very often created at an age when they are past the first flush of youth. Thirdly, as I have already said, we are a rather small working House, and to put too much strain on what is after all a comparatively small number of working Peers will be very difficult. If the House is reformed, some of this may perhaps change, but I should not have thought that these three factors will change all that much. Anyway, we have to deal with the situation in the next three months as it is, and we must be allowed to do our job.
I understand (I hope I am not revealing any secrets) that the Party managers are talking about this House regularly
770
sitting during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill until 2 a.m. I find it simply ridiculous that the House of Lords, as it is now composed, should be asked to sit until 2 o'clock in the morning to discuss the Transport Bill. They will not do it well; they will not do it properly, for the reasons that I have already stated. If this is the sort of thing that is to happen, this House will not be able to perform the functions that it has under the Constitution.
We on this side of the House have been very co-operative, and some people are already beginning to say (perhaps I may have the attention of the Leader of the House for a moment, because I do not think he will agree with this) that we have been too co-operative. Well, there may be something in that. I must warn the Government that in my view they may be straining this House to breaking point between now and the Summer Recess, and we shall be unable to do our job; we shall be swamped with undigested legislation of a complex and controversial character. I must honestly tell the Government this. We have never been obstructive, and I do not intend that we on this side should start being obstructive now. But we have a duty to perform, and we on this side intend to perform it. If a situation develops or seems likely to develop, in which it appears that the Government are steamrollering Bills through Parliament, or Bills are going through Parliament undiscussed, or because of the state of exhaustion of this House either of those two things is happening, then we simply will not have it, and I think we shall have the support of a great many people in all quarters of the House. Either the Government must give us proper time or they must postpone some of their legislation. The Government are in a terrible mess, and it is of their own making and not ours. We have our job to do, and we are going to do it.
7.8 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, my own personal contribution to the procedure of this House in the interest; of brevity is to throw my notes away entirely, and if therefore I fail to answer all the points that have been raised, it will at least have the effect of shortening my speech. There have been a number of notable

771
speeches, and I must say that one which commended itself very much to me was that made by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. It is unfortunate that the noble Lord moves so rapidly from Bench to Bench that I am never quite sure where he is sitting; indeed, he also moves laterally along the Benches at intervals. But what he had to say about the procedure manners of the House is something that I, certainly, as Leader of the House, am very conscious of. I should like, therefore, to refer in the first instance to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and other noble Lords about the customs at Question Time.
It is exceedingly difficult (and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I am sure will bear me out in this) if it is left to the Leader of the House to act as a sort of schoolmaster to the House. There are times when I am inhibited from doing so, because the contributions that may come from both sides, including the Government Front Bench, are of the kind that suggest to me that it would be unfair for me to stop other people from being as lengthy in asking questions on replies conscientiously given by my very conscientious colleagues which have greatly widened the discussion. I cannot, obviously, refer in detail to our proceedings in the Committee for Procedure, but these are matters in which the cooperation of the House as a whole will make an enormous difference.
I do not need to reiterate the points which so many noble Lords have made beyond saying to my noble friend Lord Fiske—I very much welcome his speech from a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House, and I hope he will accept this remark as intended in a courteous way—that when he has been here a little longer he will have found the answers to some of the points he made. We rarely adjourn for dinner, and when we do it is largely for the reason that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, gave in discussing the difficulties of Committees: to provide some moment in which those who serve us are able to get a meal. My noble friend Lord Beswick is constantly worried about this; he is sometimes more worried about the burdens we put on the Hansard writers and others—although we go on doing it pretty ruthlessly—than the convenience of
772
the House. And he is right to be. These are some of the difficulties. To use that terrible phrase which is sometimes applied outside the military field, we have not got the infrastructure for the extra operational activity that your Lordships are called upon to provide.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, made a number of interesting points in relation to the development of procedure. I certainly am unable to comment on any suggestions he may have made as to what any future nature of a reformed House would be, because so far as I know nothing has been settled about this. At any rate, I certainly should not wish to comment on it.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I say that I was referring to my own Bill as to what I regard as the nature of the reform which should take place. I am unaware of whatever is decided by the Front Bench.
LORD SHACKLETON: All I would say on this question is that we are in difficulties in this House because, in some sense, without being in any way in a state of suspended animation (because the one thing this House is not in is a state of suspension), we are probably moving between two stages of our existence.
My noble friend Lord Beswick made very clear the developments that had taken place in your Lordships' House, and I think there was a general acknowledgment of them. It may be very difficult for us to adapt our procedures as we might like to do, while the House is in an unreformed state. There are the problems that noble Lords are not only part-timers; they are very much part-timers. Many noble Lords have important engagements to fulfil. They have to earn their livings, and it is exceedingly difficult. I know how hard my noble friend Lord Beswick tries to suit the convenience of your Lordships in regard to debates. It certainly is true that there was a time when the most admirable excuse one could give for the postponement of a piece of business was that one happened to be dining out that night. If one was going to Glyndebourne, Ascot, the Derby, or somewhere like that, the reasons were even more respectable. But, alas!, we are not able entirely to suit your Lordships' convenience, and I am

773
very conscious that the Government are asking your Lordships to put up with a great deal. It would be useless for me to deny it.
What we have suggested is that there may be at least some changes in procedure that will help us. However, what has emerged from this debate, I think, is that perhaps the most useful thing we can do will be in fact to apply some of our basic principles, whether of good manners or of the custom of the House; and this we shall have to do ourselves. It is not true that the House is not able to enforce its will if it wishes, but it means that there must be a more conscious and collective approach, and I think there have been developments in this direction lately.
A number of points were made in regard to the working of a possible Committee system. My impression is that, on the whole, your Lordships would be in favour of an experiment. I myself share the doubts that have been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, pointed out very fairly that it is almost impossible to say what is a non-controversial Bill. In fact, one of the most fatal statements that any Minister can make to his colleagues in a legislative committee or some such body is that the little Bill he is going to introduce is going to be entirely non-controversial. Almost invariably it arouses some tremendous passions somewhere, and the Minister then finds he is in dead trouble. I do not think, therefore, that we could hope merely to pick out a Bill and say it was so innocuous as to be non-controversial. Indeed, if it is worth discussing and arguing about at all, there is likely to be some element of controversy in it. Therefore the procedure must depend upon the type and nature of the Bill. A major Bill like the Transport Bill, which is a major Bill in a Party's political programme, would clearly be as unsuitable to send upstairs as some of the previous Government's Bills relating to rent, or the introduction of commercial television, or Bills which in their time they guillotined without any complaint from your Lordships' House. I do not think such Bills would be suitable to send to the Committee upstairs.
But what will be important in carrying out this experiment, if we do, is that we shall have to do so with a great deal
774
of consciousness as to the risks we run. It may be possible to decide—it may not, but suggestions have been made by noble Lords; I cannot remember whether they came from the noble Lord, Lord Alport, or other noble Lords—that certain obviously contentious issues will be best preserved for the House. I rather share the view of those noble Lords who think that perhaps the greatest influence of this House is through discussion, through voices, rather than through votes; although in a sense there is a technical point where a voice, I think, becomes a vote. On this matter, however, I should have thought we might find, after a preliminary canter, that particular Bills were clearly going to involve a real fight, and at that moment the Committee, in an informal way, might decide to say "We won't pursue this matter any further". The Minister might say to a noble Lord, "Perhaps the noble Lord would wish now to withdraw his Amendment and put it down again on the Floor of the House, where he will be able properly to deploy arguments".
What would be fatal would be if in fact we were to have a Committee which was open to the whole House, and, in order to win a particular Amendment the House itself was suddenly denuded of all its Members, who were hauled in by the Whips Office in order to vote in Committee upstairs. This, clearly, would destroy the procedure. The object, of course, will not be to save time; it will be in fact to save time on the Floor of the House. Indeed, one hopes it might also contribute to the better and more thorough discussions which noble Lords are so anxious to achieve.
Pursuing the examples that have been given, and competing, if possible, for at least an honourable mention in relation to shortness of speeches—I do not think I shall ever do as well as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—I must nevertheless just refer to some of the rather more threatening remarks that emanated from noble Lords opposite. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, when he said, as I think he did, that the House would do its best with the legislation that comes before us. There seems to be an impression very notable among some noble Lords on the other side that all legislation is bad and that provided that you do not legislate on something you are

775
actually displaying your social virtue. I cannot accept that. Indeed, the Conservative Government never accepted it. I remember noble Lords opposite, when they were in Government, and in particular Lord Hailsham, complaining about the difficulties of getting legislative time, and in order to improve the output of legislation, particularly for secondary legislation of importance, devices like the Second Reading Committees were produced. The sufferers from bottlenecks in legislation are not the main Bills of strong Party political content but secondary Bills of importance—a Bill such as that concerned with libraries, which was held up for some time after the Roberts Committee Report in the days of the previous Government, and then it was found just possible to slip it in.
I am a little surprised that noble Lords who used the guillotine so freely should complain about the use of the guillotine by a Labour Government. In fact, twelve measures were guillotined in the days of the Conservative Government and there have been six in the days of a Labour Government since the war. Indeed even Lords' Amendments have been guillotined under a Conservative Government. This argument always arouses emotion, and in my view it is only partially sincere. I am not attacking noble Lords opposite, because I know at times they feel passionately on this question, but they really ought to consider the problem. When it comes to the Finance Bill it is difficult for us to discuss the procedure in another place, but there had been definite recommendations from a Procedure Committee that there should be time-tabling of the Finance Bill, and in my view it would have been perfectly possible to avoid the sort of delays that will now lead to the guillotine falling. I do not wish to criticise right honourable Members in another place, but I find it ludicrous to suggest that it would not have been possible to discuss the Finance Bill if the Opposition in another place had really wanted to do so.
Therefore I hope we shall continue to get the co-operation of noble Lords. I would not for one moment suggest—although the thought did cross my mind—that the Conservative Opposition are using this as a respectable excuse for holding up Government measures in your
776
Lordships' House. I do not accuse noble Lords of that, and I do not think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, would suggest it, but I must say that I think they would not mind if they had an excuse of this kind. It would create the most tremendous difficulties and dangers and militate against an orderly development of procedure in this House and our future progress.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord threatening us now?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord can just sit and take it for a minute. I am not threatening, I am just putting ideas in front of your Lordships' House, in the same way that the noble Lord himself did. We were kept up night after night in the days of the Conservative Government on Bills—for instance, the London Government Bill. They will say that we kept them up, and I do not doubt that it will be the Opposition who will keep us up on the Transport Bill when it comes to this House, although I personally have not heard of the "two o'clock rule". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is better informed than my noble friend and I. This may be part of "usual channel" discussions and it may well be that they are prophesying correctly.
To sum up, I think it is not possible for us at this stage to set in hand a far-reaching examination of our procedure in time to do anything which will alleviate the position in the next two or three months. I think all noble Lords will agree on that. I am grateful to the noble Marquess for recognising that this is not a new problem, even though he quite fairly pointed out that perhaps it will be worse this year than in previous years; but I hope very much that we shall continue to do our utmost, adopting some of the principles that have been enunciated, to cope with the legislation that comes before us.
I cannot accept that the requirements of the country as judged by a Government, whichever Government it may be, should suffer seriously as a result of outmoded procedures or practices. It may well be that it is unfair to expect our House at this moment to cope in this sort of way, but we are being asked to do so—and this is said in no threatening way at all. And however unpopular the

777
Government may be thought to be at the moment by Opposition members, I do not think it will be accepted as an adequate reason for refraining to do what we believe to be necessary. Much of the legislation coming forward is important legislation. I do not think anyone on the other side of the House would seriously suggest that it is legislation just produced for doctrinaire reasons or out of Party political spite.
In conclusion, I wish to express my appreciation to your Lordships for a most interesting debate. I think it has served the purpose which we had in mind; (a) to discuss certain things which we might do in the short term; and (b), to expose to the House the problems with which we are confronted. I hope it will be felt that those of us who have spoken from the Front Bench on this side of the House have been completely frank with the House. We shall continue to be so. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—if it does not embarrass him—that we appreciate that he also has difficulties. The task of the Leader of the House is supposed to be difficult, but I personally think that the task of Leader of the Opposition can be difficult as well. However, I hope that with the application of the principles of co-operation which have been enunciated, and with the prospect of experimenting with one Bill upstairs, we shall be able to get through somehow during the next few months.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House sits down, may I ask one question? This was raised by the Opposition Chief Whip and also by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley. Is there any reason why we should not seriously consider that the House should sit during the month of November to clear up legislation and that we should have the official Opening of Parliament at the beginning of December? This state of affairs will occur with much greater frequency, and indeed it has often happened, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury said; and I cannot see why we should not have an overspill and have four weeks to clear up a great deal of the legislation that comes up to us so late from another place.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think I shall have to get the noble Lord, Lord Denham, to talk to the noble Lord, because he almost made a little speech,
778
which is contrary to our practice. I will take note of the noble Lord's suggestion, but I do not think it is something that can be lightly introduced, and I am passionately opposed to the idea of carrying over Bills from one Session to another as a general rule. Nevertheless, these points are of interest, and no doubt in future they will be considered. I do not think we can hope to do it this year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERSIAN GULF: WITHDRAWAL OF BRITISH FORCES
7.29 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY LORD BOOTHBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of recent developments in the Middle East, they will now reconsider the decision to withdraw the British naval and military presence in the Persian Gulf. The noble Lord said: My Lords I am afraid that I cannot follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and listen to all the previous speeches in this debate, because mine happens to be the first. But I can follow his advice to the extent that I will not speak for more than ten minutes.
I have put down this Unstarred Question because I confess that I am at present bewildered by the whole defence policy of Her Majesty's Government. On the face of it, the problem is not complicated. Taking a global view, the naval threat in the North Sea, which has overshadowed the lives of most of us in this House, has gone; in the Mediterranean our vital interests have virtually disappeared since the closing of the Suez Canal; on the Continent of Europe, Russian policy against us is at least clear. Anyone who thinks that the Russians intend to march ground troops into West Germany ought to have his head examined. What the Russians want is the maintaining of the Warsaw Pact, a divided Germany and the maintenance of the Oder-Neisse frontier. I cannot find myself in violent opposition to any of those objectives. Finally, there is no visible threat in the Indian Ocean.
There are in fact, in my submission, two spots, and only two, where we have interests which are vital to the economic wellbeing and even to the survival of this country. They are, first, the Persian Gulf, and, secondly, the Cape. You have only to go and see them, as I have

779
recently done, to realise what the Iranian oilfields, operated by the consortium, and the Kuwait oilfield, perhaps the greatest single oilfield in the world, and Bahrein mean to us, and what the means of getting the products of those three oilfields to this country mean to us. Cut them off and we should be in a pretty mess. Cut the Cape route, and not only the oil trade but the whole of cur trade with Australia, India, New Zealand, Japan and the East Indies would virtually "go West".
When we talk about the Suez Canal do not let us be under any illusion. The Suez Canal may be closed for a considerable time to come, and meanwhile the great oil companies are rapidly building large tankers, which will be unable to get through the Suez Canal, even if it is reopened, and must go round the Cape. When I came back from the Cape the other day I stood with the captain on the bridge, and he said to me, "We could go for days in the old days without seeing a single ship; and look at it now". There was hardly any occasion, by day or night, when there were not at least three ships within visibility of ours. It is now a tremendous trade route and most important to us.
I say that Her Majesty's Government have been clearly right to confine our nuclear deterrent to the Polaris submarines, right to close the naval bases in the Mediterranean and at Singapore and Aden; but surely wrong to keep the greater part of our available ground forces kicking their heels, at enormous expense and to no purpose whatsoever, in Germany. We have had the benefit of the views of the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, upon this subject, and I know of no high-ranking soldier who really believes there is a menace which can be contained by ground forces in Germany, and who does not think that the stationing of all these ground troops in Germany at the present time at enormous expense is quite unjustifiable from any point of view. Finally, I would say that Her Majesty's Government were wrong to give tacit approval and, therefore, moral support to the war in Vietnam, which was described to me not long ago by
780
the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery, as the cruellest, most purposeless and senseless war that has ever been waged.
Wrong, I think, again—and this is the point of my Question—were the Government to announce the pending withdrawal of the British naval and military presence in the Persian Gulf; and finally, wrong to deny to South Africa arms which they badly need for the defence of the Cape, even if they be limited to naval power, and give them instead to Nigeria and Jordan, which is like throwing a lighted match into a powder keg. We know from our experience in Malaya (which we have twice saved since the war, the first time from Communism and the second time from the Indonesian confrontation) and in Kuwait, that brushwood fires can be put out with comparatively small forces, provided they are there. The object is to prevent the fires from spreading.
I am not asking in this Question for the stationing of large forces in the Persian Gulf; but something of the order of a brigade or even a couple of battalions, and a frigate or two at Bahrein. The Sheiks, who have so much to lose, have offered to pay their share for their own defence, as against the West Germans who do not need it to anything like the same extent. But what is the reply of the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Healey? He says, with exquisite courtesy, "We do not intend to become mercenaries". With all due respect to Mr. Healey, for whom I have a great admiration, I say that that is childish nonsense. Most wars prior to the present century were fought by mercenaries, and we should not be mercenaries if we accepted some aid from the Sheiks of the Persian Gulf for their own protection and the protection of their oil.
In conclusion, I want to put two questions. Have Her Majesty's Government any evidence that the Soviet Union has, or contemplates, a naval and military presence in the Persian Gulf?—because we have had some pretty authoritative reports in the newspapers in the last three weeks that they do. Secondly, why in any event should we remove our presence when we have so much at stake? I am asking only for the continuation of the

781
naval and military presence, and in considering this matter I beg the Government to get back to first principles. It is not difficult to stop the seizure by a foreign nation of the Persian Gulf oil fields. It is not possible to contain Chinese and Russian military power on the mainland of Asia by military forces alone, and that, I think, is the great mistake the United States Government have made. In my submission—and it is my final submission—sea power is the answer to this question and to the problem of defence, as it has always been with us: in the Pacific and China Seas by the United States, in the Afro-Indian Ocean by the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa—and I add South Africa deliberately—acting in co-operation from bases in Australia and at the Cape. Nobody can deny that these are absolutely vital interests for this country. So it proved in the Old World, so it will prove in the New.
7.36 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, we on this side are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for raising this most important Question, even at this late hour. It does seem to us extraordinary that it is planned to withdraw from the Gulf in 1971, regardless of what the situation may be then. It was only on July 27 that Mr. Healey the Minister of Defence said:
"I am equally certain that we are right not to attempt to fix, still less to announce, a date for a withdrawal from our positions in the Persian Gulf. At the moment, we are making a vital contribution … welcomed by the local States, who are not yet in agreement on how to handle the situation if and when we should withdraw."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 27/7/67, col. 993.]
Now, six months later, he announces our intention to withdraw in 1971. But we have been given no convincing reason for this change of policy, nor a convincing reason why, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, their offer to defray the expenses of a military garrison remaining after 1971 is not acceptable to the Government.
We note that the world situation, particularly in the Near and Middle East, has far from improved since the Minister's earlier statements, with which we were in full agreement. Russia is more and more active in the Persian Gulf and the
782
Indian Ocean. There are no indications that peace and order will be maintained after our departure. No progress has been made towards any federation of the Gulf States; indeed, a very recently arranged meeting has just been cancelled. Despite the increasing power and influence of the Soviet Union in these areas, we do not believe that she intends or wishes to precipitate a crisis; but it is indisputable that Russia will do a great deal to wreck the Western alliances and treaties and endeavour to secure a position where she will have power to cut the air and sea communications between the NATO Powers in Europe and their allies in the Central Treaty Organisation, as well as with the countries of SEATO, in an emergency.
If our physical presence is removed we lay ourselves open to political and naval harassment. We have already seen how easy it is to sink a ship without notice, and the source of attack, whether it is from the land, from under the sea or from the air, can be concealed. If we try to bolster up confidence and stability in the Gulf States with only a seaborne force—and here I do not go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Booth by, although I agree that a seaborne force is necessary—the Government must not put that force into such a position that its only defence is retaliation, unless the politics of retaliation is acceptable to the Government; and I cannot see that being likely.
As I have said before, throughout the world to-day there is a battle for men's minds, and nowhere is the power of propaganda more effective than in Arab countries. I have lived in Arab countries for thirteen years, and I am in close touch to-day with Arab opinion from the position that I occupy as head of a big charitable organisation which works throughout the Near and Middle East. Propaganda can be countered best by a sympathetic, but not necessarily large, presence on the ground which shows our intention and willingness to give our protection and to contradict lies. Remove that presence and the job is twice as difficult; the lies stick.
In addition to this presence we have one tremendous national asset. Over hundreds of years we have produced a remarkable number of men and women, who in the countries where they work,

783
whether as diplomats, Government agents, explorers, businessmen or missionaries, give an example of devotion, integrity and wise advice to the people among whom they live. And this counts for much in the Middle East. To-day the opportunities for such people are fewer; the need is greater, when we are no longer in a position to back them up. The world is not yet in such a state that a vacuum caused by the removal of one Power can be filled by a few words of cheer by the United Nations Secretary-General and the confidence that right will always triumph.
So I beg the Government not to commit themselves to a policy which might well have disastrous consequences. We need only a small presence and the ability to increase and reinforce, if we are asked to, which we may be able to do only if we are present on the ground. To try to restore a serious situation is much more difficult and expensive than to prevent such a situation from occurring, particularly if there are other Powers around who are determined to exacerbate it. Therefore, we on this side can assure our friends that we will support our country's friends and allies, and, if it has to be, will restore the good name of Britain if it has been sullied by broken pledges.
7.44 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, my intervention in this debate tonight will not, I hope, be too lengthy. It is primarily intended as a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who during the whole of my active political life has inspired my thinking. I have not always agreed with him, but on whatever subject he talks he speaks with sincerity and with great clarity of mind. Tonight, however, I think that he has perhaps fallen just a little short of that high standard. Just remember for a moment his opening remarks. He made two assertions. First he regarded British defence policy as something about which he was completely uncertain. Secondly, he spoke as if all the secrets of the Russian intelligence service were open to him, or he laid it down, as obiter dicta, what Russian defence policy was in Europe. This seems to me to be slightly contradictory.
Let us examine his proposition, the uncertainty about British defence policy. There is one thing that one can be sure
784
about: a defence policy does not grow overnight. It is no good the noble Lord who has just spoken, except for the purpose of making a convincing peroration, on which I compliment him, coming along and talking in the terms that he does, because a defence policy which is extant at the moment is born of the thinking and the inactions and, if you like, the mistakes or the correct decisions of the last 20 years.
The starting point, of course, of contemporary defence policy is to be found in what was perhaps the most diabolical doctrine that has ever been inflicted upon this country, the 1957 White Paper. This laid down that Britain must in future depend upon an independent British deterrent, which we did not possess, never have possessed and never could in any circumstances possess. Even if we had acquired Blue Streak, this was the greatest example of hocus-pocus and humbug ever inflicted upon us. This weapon was not British at all; it was American. When, finally, it became impossible to sustain it and it had to be given up, even then the Government of the day ran away from the consequences of that action.
I am not claiming for a moment that one can expect every Government in the field of defence policy to get everything right. Of course they cannot. They are acting upon limited evidence. But what is incumbent upon any Government, and, may I say again, with respect to the noble Lord who has just spoken, what is incumbent on all of us who are engaged in public life, is to speak the truth as we see it. Our country fought two devastating wars, actions indeed for which we have no need to apologise to the rising generation. In the first, one million men gave their lives for what they regarded as a noble cause. They fought, as they believed, in defence of freedom. In the Second World War, too, ours is a proud record, for which none of us need apologise. We stood alone; and had we not done so, it would be a quite different world from what we see to-day.
But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby: let us go back to first principles. Let us see what is the object, or what should be the object, of British defence policy. What does a country of

785
50 million people, with a rising population, with a built-in adverse balance of trade, which must exist or die according to the extent to which it can succeed as a trading nation want above all? It wants stability. It is impossible to get expanding international trade; commerce cannot flow across national frontiers; capital investment cannot go into raising the standard of life in the backward areas, raising the standard of life of our own people. All the time we simply stumble from crisis to crisis. Yet the policy that we have pursued (though sometimes I am not sure whether we are now pursuing it) is a policy for engaging in the furtherance of stability. If one looks at one of the major faults that has permeated both Parties, one finds that it has been based upon the conception, in which many noble Lords here present certainly believed, that what we should do at all costs, or so it sometimes appeared, is to get into the Common Market: that we should link our forces with Europe.
It was a Conservative Prime Minister who committed this country to the proposition that we would maintain to the end of this century four divisions on the European land mass. If any noble Lord on the opposite side of the House wants to use expressions about the fulfilment of obligations, or wants to use the word "honour", I commend him to do one thing, to read Lord Moran's diaries, to read his account of his discussion with the then Prime Minister, the late Sir Winston Churchill, on October 1, 1954. He recounts that the previous day, in Paris, Lord Avon had committed us to maintain four divisions. Lord Moran was full of glee. He pointed out the great triumphs that had been achieved; how Mr. Mendes-France had leaned across and congratulated Lord Avon. And Churchill said to him "Oh, that! We do not mean a word of it. This could be abandoned at any time."
Again, those on Conservative Benches who use the word "honour", should consider that the men in regard to whom we were committed from the time these words were signed, if we are to believe Churchill, were never intended to amount to four divisions. If the noble Lord will turn to the Defence White Paper of 1958 he will see that they were written down to 77,000. Before the ink was
786
dry, the figure was 64,000. Then it became 55,000. Later, Mr. Duncan Sandys—held up to us as a model of propriety and probity in public life—even wanted to cut it down to 45,000.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby: the maintenance of the British Army on the Rhine is a military joke. It could not fight for five minutes, left on its own. Its major support weapons are—what? American; and obsolete at that. The weapons are American weapons manned by Germans. This is a long story. I have told it before, and it needs to be told again; but the price that was paid for that was to get the whole problem out of focus and to fail to recognise the first principle, where power now lies. The power struggle in the world has moved from Europe; it has moved from Europe and it has gone South and East. The concluding passages of the late Sir Louis Namier's. Vanished Supremacies, tell the story how in April, 1945 at Torgau, a Russian soldier shook hands with an American soldier. He said that on that day the supremacy of Europe was ended. The great power bloc is now with the Soviet Union and with the United States.
Now, my Lords, it is my belief—and here I base it on no more than my reading of the situation—that one of the great stabilising factors in the world at the present time, although it is not explicit, although it has not been spelt out, is that in fact there is at the moment a détente between the Soviet Union and the United States. There was an incident at the time of the recent Israeli war, the last one, when a weather ship was sunk, and I noted that the Americans were left in the water to drown. The Sixth Fleet did not put off one helicopter until they had been on the "hot line" to Moscow, because if they had dared it would have shown up on the radar screen. This is the basic fact of the situation.
But here, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, begins to go off the rails. Stability, yes; but also the economic necessities of the time in which we live. This country, if one reads the Press and listens to week-end speakers, is in a terrible state. In actual fact, I see very little sign of people starving in the streets. By many indices our standards are improved. But let us stop for a

787
moment concentrating our attention on the will-o-the-wisp of getting into the Common Market. This is a concept, let me say, to which I was never opposed, and should not be opposed now, if it were practicable. But, for me, one of the few requirements of a politician is to distinguish between those things I want and those that I can get. By going for the Common Market, which was way over the horizon, we have forgotten where the power lies.
Britain's position in the world (and here I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is with me) has depended on the fact that Britain was a great Islamic Power. One of the great stabilising factors in the world which has now been removed was that Britain could carry on a dialogue between Islam, which is basically xenophobic, and the Western World. For the Israeli war, at which we stood on the side-lines and some of us cheered—and by all means cheer, if you like—there was a price to be paid, and there is a price to be paid now. This country is in economic difficulties, but stop to think what that war cost. The closing of the Suez Canal costs us not less than £20 million a month. And that is only part of the price, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, pointed out, the Suez Canal may never be open again, may never operate again on the terms it once did. It may become a permanent loss.
In addition to that, here is a vast market in which there has been built up a fund of distrust for Britain. What the economic consequences of this are, what the figures are, I do not know; but I would hazard a guess and say that if "the moving finger" had not written, if we could put the clock back, we should no longer be in the red. If it had not been for what happened in June, 1967, this country's immediate economic prospects would be clear to the whole world and there would be no talks about lack of confidence.
It is no good talking about keeping the Cape route open, or keeping the Mediterranean clear, for we lack the resources. The forces have been run down by the policies of both great Parties. It was the Conservative Party that started it. First they abolished conscription. They believed they would be able to raise voluntary forces. The did not succeed but they
788
managed to put up the cost of pay and allowances to the point where they could not afford to arm the forces they recruited.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? Does he really think that the British Navy, in co-operation with the South African Navy, is incapable of keeping the Cape route I open at the present time?
LORD WIGG: The keeping open of the Cape route does not depend either upon the British Navy or the South African Navy. If the Soviet Union at any given time cared to undertake the major act of closing sea communications, I assert there is nothing that this country, or the South African Government, could do to stop it. The only Power in the world that could take counter-action against such an act as that is the United States. The fact is that we now live in an era when it is not the Pax Britannica, but the American equivalent of it, whatever those words are in Latin.
Those are the basic facts. What we have to do here is to try to find a way in which the things about ourselves in which we believe shall be applied throughout the world. I happen to believe that one of the major facts in the world is the survival of a working democracy in this country. It is the most civilised way men have yet found of governing themselves. It has been copied all over the world without very much success, but the fact that we here are a working democracy, in a world in which instability is increasing all the time, is something which is of greater importance to us than the maintenance of two or three thousand troops in Bahrein, or two or three thousand troops in Sharja.
If I had my way we would not have withdrawn from the Middle East. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I would have come out of the Rhine Army; I would have run down the Rhine Army, and I would have built up and maintained our strength in the Middle East, not because we should ever be capable of meeting an attack by the Soviet Union but because—and I agree with him—the presence of the troops in that area widens the area of stability which enables us, and the interests we represent, to operate not only in our interests but in the interests of the whole world.
My Lords, I have inflicted myself on you for far too long, but I am convinced

789
that unless we begin to grapple—and it is very late in the day—with our defence policy long-term, then we shall increasingly be paying a very high bill and getting very few results. I conclude on the note on which I started. I found myself taking exception to some of Lord Boothby's opening words, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench made points which one would not have much difficulty in rebutting. But if one wants to find the silliest words ever written in the English language, I would ask noble Lords to turn to the opening paragraph of the 1958 White Paper, which says:
"The world today is poised between the hope of total peace and the fear of total war."
The fear of total war?—catastrophe, oblivion, annihilation, not only the end of civilisation as we know it, but perhaps the end of all physical life. But total peace? Surely, that is the Kingdom of Heaven. Look around us. There is not much sign of the Kingdom of Heaven. We live in a world of evil men, men struggling for short cuts to power, men and nations struggling to dominate their neighbours, not caring tuppence about anyone's interests but their own.
The truth is that the British soldier, sailor and airman down the ages has played the role of policeman. I am proud to say that many of my forebears in a humble capacity have played that part. I believe that Britain's interest is in playing the policeman. We cannot run away from that role because there is nobody else at the moment willing to take it on. We cannot have as big a police force as we had, whether it be airborne, seaborne, or on land. But at least we can start by getting clear in our minds what it is all about and securing, so far as we can, that in the interests not only of ourselves but of the world as a whole, the 50 million people in these Islands realise that down the ages they have had an essential part to play, and that if they do not play it nobody else will.
8.3 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I feel I must say just one word. In spite of an extremely interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, I must say how strongly I should like to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. There seems
790
to be an idea in the mind of the Government that when we move our Armed Forces out of any area in the world, the position remains exactly the same as when we were there, and that the balance of power in the world remains unaltered. But it does not. When we move out of any area in the world, we create a power vacuum. That vacuum is immediately filled by someone else, and nearly always by someone entirely opposed to all the interests and principles for which we stand. It has happened again and again in the last few years. If it were to happen in the Persian Gulf, it would be a disaster of the first order not only for us but for the whole of the Western World. I simply do not believe, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that we could not undertake this particular obligation if we really wanted to do so.
What is now contemplated in the Persian Gulf, as I understand it is far more dangerous to us and to the cause of Western civilisation even than the abandonment of Aden. I beg the Government even now to revoke the disastrous decision to which they have come and accept, if it is required, the offer which I understand has been made by the local rulers to subsidise our forces and lighten the financial burden upon us. This would be a decision which I feel sure this country would never regret. To run away from all our obligations overseas is not the right way to maintain the stability and prosperity of this country, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, attaches so much importance.
8.5 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I said in your Lordships' House last night I could, if this were not an Unstarred Question, answer it very briefly indeed—I think in a way which would satisfy even my noble friend Lord Leatherland, who spoke so eloquently in an earlier debate. The decision to withdraw our forces from the Persian Gulf by the end of 1971 was taken after prolonged consideration and we do not now intend to reverse it. That is the answer to the Question. However I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for giving us the opportunity for this short debate. It surprised me to find the noble Lord, who had distinguished service in the R.A.F. in the war, extolling

791
the virtues of sea power. I wondered for a moment what we were coming to. I thought we might even hear the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, extolling the virtues of inter-continental rockets.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, air power in the modern world is a component of sea power.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the noble Lord is partly right. If he would like to take up with me matters of strategic doctrine, I should be delighted to reply to him, but not at this time of night. It may help if I explain the background to the decision which we have taken, and perhaps give a short account of recent developments in the Persian Gulf.
This debate has ranged rather wide. We went rather outside the framework of the Question on to broader problems of strategic doctrine and defence policy. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, displayed his customary mastery of the subject of defence policy, a subject on which he gave long and distinguished service in another place. I was interested in what he said about the community of interest between the super-Powers, which is one of the important factors we have to recognise in our political and military life.
I would take issue with him on two points, one of detail and one of general policy. I know that he is an old and distinguished soldier and that he would not want to cast any kind of doubt upon the efficiency and morale of the troops of the British Army of the Rhine. I know that he was talking about the argument as to their political presence or as to the military worth of their presence. On that he is entitled to his own view, with which I am familiar. But I am sure, whatever those arguments may be, that the British Army of the Rhine is a fine fighting force, high in morale, well equipped, and carrying out a very difficult task superbly well. I make that point because I am sure the noble Lord would not want any reflection of that kind to remain in anybody's mind.
LORD WIGG: My Lords the last thing I should wish to do is to reflect in any way on the efficiency of the personnel of the Army of the Rhine. My remarks were not directed to that. I wanted to
792
make clear that the Rhine Army is not equipped with the major weapons that would enable it to discharge the task imposed upon it, but it is filling a very highly important political role which the Government have imposed on it—a role which, as I have said, is political and not military.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, could a Back-Bencher get a word in for one moment? What has the Rhine Army got to do with the Persian Gulf?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I said at the beginning that we had ranged rather wide. In fact, the Rhine Army has a great deal to do with the Persian Gulf, but I shall not follow that particular argument.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, we can put some of it in the Persian Gulf.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the other point I want to make to my old friend Lord Wigg is that I know he will not expect me to agree with everything he said about our European policy and about the Common Market.
Our special relationship with the nine Protected States in the area which I thought we were debating—the Persian Gulf—rests on a series of agreements and treaties which date back to the 19th century—to 1820, in fact; and it is from these that we derive our responsibility for their external defence and for the conduct of their foreign policy and their foreign relations. But we have consistently accepted that this is an evolving relationship. It is not something which can remain static. We have regarded our obligations, both for the external affairs of those countries and more particularly for certain administrative responsibilities which we have acquired over the years, as a temporary trust and not as a permanent affair.
In recent years we have not only been transferring to the local Governments some of their internal administrative duties as their own administrations have developed, but we have also encouraged the larger and more advanced of these States to take an active part in the international scene by joining international agencies such as the World Health Organisation. We have looked ahead always, and long before it was announced last January that our forces were to be

793
withdrawn within a certain time limit we had recognised that there would have to be a term to our actual military presence in the Persian Gulf. We believe, and I believe, that the foundations for genuine stability, in spite of what one noble Lord said so powerfully and so cogently, are there in the Persian Gulf independent of any extraneous military forces at all; and that there is every reason why the sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf, who at present still look to us for protection, should face the future with optimism.
Our special position in the Persian Gulf was, I believe, in many respects a political anachronism, and we were in any case already on the way to shedding it. This process is now simply being accelerated, and as our position comes formally to an end the commitments arising from this anachronistic presence in the Persian Gulf are being reviewed, together, when it is appropriate, with the treaties and agreements themselves. For example, although our protection responsibilities towards Kuwait ended in 1961 we then undertook a residual defence obligation towards the State of Kuwait. Now, in view of their own successful development and of our changing position in the Gulf, the Kuwait Government itself has decided, in negotiation with ourselves, to arrange for the ending of that agreement. The Kuwait Government has decided upon this, and has decided to arrange to end the agreement that constituted our defence commitment towards Kuwait. In other respects, of course, our relationship with Kuwait remains unchanged, and we have every intention of fostering it. This is part of what seems to me to be a perfectly understandable evolutionary process. The continuance of the Protected States under a form of tutelage, however limited it may be and whatever name one might give it, simply does not accord with the facts of modern life; nor indeed with the essentially sovereign and independent status of the sheikhdoms.
We have never considered maintaining forces in the Persian Gulf indefinitely. This is not some new and revolutionary decision. Until January we had not set a time limit for this, as one noble Lord has pointed out. As my right honourable friend, who was then the Foreign Secretary, said at the time, we could have
794
wished that the time-scale had been different. But in our economic and financial position as it is now it would not have been right, as he explained then, to prolong our stay unless we could be certain that this would secure a notably better and sounder result, than a departure by the end of 1971; and of this there was no such certainty.
My Lords, I know that this limitation, this setting of a date for our withdrawal, imposes difficulties and problems for our friends in the Persian Gulf area. No one would attempt to conceal that. But the years in which we shall exercise an effective military capability in the area—and let us all remember that we are not withdrawing from the area tomorrow—
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, may I speak for one moment? I am a sailor, and the Persian Gulf is a naval commitment, not a military one. The noble Lord keeps on talking about "military". The Air Force did for a short time try to run Iraq and to do things of that sort; but it was a failure in the end. The Navy has always been in command in the Persian Gulf. The nobly Lord should not keep on saying that it is a military commitment. It has been a naval commitment the whole time.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, like myself realises that "military" covers all three Services. We are not engaged in an exercise in Staff duties. If the noble Viscount wants me to say "Army, Navy, and Air Force" every time I want to use the word "military", I am afraid we shall all be here a good deal longer. When I say "military" I mean all three Services, as I did when I was military correspondent of The Times and frequently wrote about the Navy.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, on a point of fact to get our history right, the military power—using the term in the widest sense—of the Ottoman Empire was not broken by the Navy. The Navy tried to do it in Gallipoli and had a calamitous failure and could not do it. It was broken by the Army in three major campaigns, with mighty little assistance from the Navy.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this is a fascinating exchange between these two great experts. I may say, from my own

795
point of view, that this form of inter-Service rivalry has bedevilled our military policy for many years and I wish we could get rid of it. As my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary said in the days that I am speaking of, we shall have an effective military capability in the area for long enough to allow the States concerned to complete their arrangements for an entirely independent existence, and I believe that is so. As your Lordships know, we have no intention of withdrawing to-morrow or next week. We have set a date and left a period within which we believe, and are confident, that the States can make their own arrangements for an entirely independent existence.
The noble Marquess, in his brief and powerful intervention, accused the Government of thinking that when they withdrew their military presence from an area things remained the same, and said that we did not realise that a vacuum of some sort was being created. I assure him that we are not guilty of that particular sin of omission. We do realise that when a military force is withdrawn from an area in which it has been for some time, of course things change. We realise full well that the States which are now under our protection cannot be expected to emerge successfully, when we have gone, into unqualified independence unless there is close co-operation among themselves and unless they have the support of their larger neighbours. We realise that things have changed, and will change when we go.
A declared aim of our policy, realising this, has been to encourage the development of an alternative system of security for the area, because we believe that in that way we can maintain the stability of the region when we eventually relinquish our responsibilities there. We have worked for the emergence of a consensus among the countries—both large and small countries around the Persian Gulf—so that any differences which they have between them can, as we expect, be amicably settled, and so that the major Powers in the area can work in co-operation and not in competition. The noble Marquess may disagree with the way in which we have tried to solve the problem, but I beg him to realise that we have not ignored it. Within the sort
796
of consensus that I am speaking about in the area, we believe, then, that the smaller States could exist without fear of attack from outside, and indeed without fear of infiltration and subversion which was mentioned in the debate to-night.
I think it would be idle to suggest that the Persian Gulf is different from any other part of the world by being free from local rivalries and tensions. Of course it is not. It is possible that in that part of the world local rivalries bedevil the situation more than anywhere else. But there is no doubt—and I believe everyone in your Lordships' House Will agree with this—that all these countries along the Persian Gulf have a common interest, whether or not they can perceive it now. I also believe there is good reason to think that there is enough good will and statesmanship in the area to bring about what we hope for in the time that we have allowed for it to happen. I shall move on quickly, because I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time.
LORD SEGAL: Will my noble friend forgive my interrupting him? Do I take it that he can assert that the State of Iran and the State of Bahrein have common interests in the Persian Gulf?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, yes, I can certainly state that they have common interests. I did not actually say "common interests in the Persian Gulf." I said that the States that border the Persian Gulf have common interests, whether they perceive it or not. I make that statement unequivocally.
I should like to deal very quickly now with two points that have been raised. First of all, there is the question of Soviet expansion in this area—the possibility, which has been canvassed in many places and which has been mentioned in the debate to-night, that the Soviet Union might rush in and fill this vacuum which is sometimes described as being the result of our withdrawal from the area. I will say no more about this than simply that I believe the fears which have been expressed about the expansion of Soviet influence in the area and the subversive activities which are reported to be going on in the area will prove in the end to be very greatly exaggerated. I know this is a very dangerous thing to say, and that one might always be proved to be wrong.

797
One often is proved to be wrong in making this kind of statement. Of course, we have read these reports which have appeared in the Press. I can only say—and I can go no further than this, I fear—that the information I have indicates to me that the activities as at present described are described exaggeratedly; and I believe that the danger of the Soviet Union attempting any kind of occupation of this area in any real military sense which would be dangerous to us is exaggerated.
On the question of oil, although we are not wholly or even necessarily largely dependent for our oil on the States of the Gulf, we do not underestimate the importance of this area as an oil supplier. I will say that.
LORD BOOTHBY: Surely, my Lords, "largely" is not an exaggeration, if you take in Kuwait. "Largely", I should have said, was not unfair.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we will not argue about that particular word. I will give the noble Lord the word "largely" and simply say that we are certainly not entirely dependent on them as oil suppliers. But we have made it clear, I think, that our Forces in the area are not there merely to ensure the continued flow of oil. This is not the exclusive purpose for having the troops there. As I have said before, one of the results of our presence there in the past has been to contribute to the maintenance of stable conditions generally, and, of course, it is in a condition of general stability of this kind that the risk of interference with oil supplies is automatically reduced. But I have said, and I believe it to be true, that when we withdraw in the time-scale that we have laid down there is no reason to believe that conditions for continued stability will not remain in the area.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to say this. I think I have explained why Her Majesty's Government do not intend to move from the present time-scale for the military withdrawal. I might also explain that within this period there is no rigid time-table set for the evolution of our relationship with the protected States. We are now in the process of working out a programme which will take full account of the views of the Governments concerned. This need not
798
mean the end of our relationship with the Persian Gulf countries. The departure of the last military unit does not mean the end of our relationship with these States. But the nature of that relationship will change and must change. After the winding up of our military presence there we shall still be ready to help them with technical aid and any other forms of assistance which might be appropriate; but after 1971, instead of our presence being chiefly in the form of troops and aircraft, we shall be concentrating on the constructive task of helping in the economic and administrative development of the States in the Persian Gulf who want help from us.
If I may trespass upon your Lordships' patience for two minutes longer, I should like in conclusion to advance a slightly more general proposition arising out of the noble Lord's Question, his speech and some of the other speeches that were made. He and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, asked us to go back to first principles in considering these matters of defence and foreign policy. Although I know the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, to be a thoughtful, civilised and imaginative man, there seems to me to be something about his Question that perpetuates something which seems to me to be a fallacy—the fallacy that the influence of a country in international affairs depends directly on its ability to deploy military force overseas. I think this is a fallacy. Without beginning an exhaustive examination of this subject to-night, I should simply like to say two things. The first is that even if military power were assumed to be the prime factor in the influence of this or any other country overseas, it is very old-fashioned indeed to suppose that this means maintaining bases and garrisons and ships and aircraft overseas.
I thought at one time that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, with his great military background and experience, was going to agree with me, but he did not; and in the end I thought he was saying something which disturbed me and concerned me a good deal. I hope I misunderstood him, but I thought he was saying that this kind of policy stood in danger of being reversed in the unlikely event of certain political circumstances supervening in this country. I hope I did not understand him aright, because

799
that would seem to me to be a very dangerous idea to allow to get about.
LORD THURLOW: I am sorry; my attention was diverted for a moment. Which point was the noble Lord afraid I had transgressed?
LORD CHALFONT: It would be dangerous for me to try to quote the noble Lord without seeing the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I thought he hinted that his Party would reverse the policies that we were putting into effect in the Persian Gulf. If I misunderstood the noble Lord, I am sorry, but that is what I thought he was implying.
LORD THURLOW: We say that if our presence is needed, and is necessary, we shall reverse the present Government's policies.
LORD CHALFONT: I thank the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for making that clear. I should like simply, then, to make this point. I believe it to be a fallacy, even if you believe that military power is the prime factor in influence abroad, to think that it means keeping bases and ships and garrisons overseas. We live in a world in which military technology has made, and is still making, astonishing advances every day; and we live, if we look at the political side of this for a moment, in a world in which the forces of nationalism are becoming irresistible. I submit that in this kind of world it makes no sort of sense at all to suppose that the future of this or that part of the world, the Persian Gulf or anywhere else, can be prescribed and determined by the presence of men in tanks or aeroplanes, or even in ships. Even if we accept that military power is still, in the Clausewiczian sense, a natural extension of a country's foreign policy, let us at least realise that military power in the nuclear age is a very different thing from the military power of the days of the Charge of the Light Brigade.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I simply want to say that I fundamentally disagree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is saying. I believe that you cannot have a foreign policy at all unless you have armaments behind it. Otherwise no one listens to a
800
word you are saying; and, if I may say so, that is just what is happening to the present Government to-day.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am delighted to know that the noble Marquess disagrees fundamentally with everything that I have said. I was in some doubt before he said that as to the validity of my remarks: now I am in no doubt. But even if we accept the noble Marquess's view that power grows out of the barrel of a gun, that no one listens to you unless, in the old Clausewiczian sense, you are prepared to extend your foreign policy by the use of force, I ask the noble Marquess to believe that the nature of military power has changed, and that it cannot be wielded as it used to be wielded unless we are prepared to risk the fate which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, held up in front of us. That is what we shall risk if we go on using 20th century military power according to 19th century political philosophies. If we want to do all this, let us handle this power intelligently and with restraint.
But—and here I come to my final words—I am not sure that we should accept so readily this thesis that influence depends so crudely upon the exercise of military power. We have much else to offer to the world. We have incomparable scientific and technical skills; we have a political expertise based on centuries of democratic evolution; we have a culture and a civilisation that will bear comparison with any in the world, past or present. We are not the sort of people who need to be sustained with these Hobbesian fallacies about sovereignty and power. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is that when we look at what is happening, not only in the Middle East but all over the world, it should not be necessary to reconsider our decisions on military deployment but rather to congratulate ourselves that we have taken them.
My Lords, if I may paraphrase a comment which was once made in The Times newspaper on this very subject of defence policy: The future of this country in the affairs of the world, in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere, depends not upon the sort of military bases we have, but upon the sort of people we are.

HOLY TRINITY, WEST HAMPSTEAD BILL
Reported, without amendment.
SAINT GEORGE, BOTOLPH LANE CHURCHYARD BILL
Reported, with an Amendment.
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 13 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons on Tuesday; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
  WANDEL BRIDGE, LANARKSHIRE
  WANDEL BRIDGE, LANARKSHIRE